Datasets:

jasper-xian

/

tevatron_fiqa_qrels

like 0

[ { "docid": "569461", "title": "", "text": "If the charity accepts stock, you can avoid the tax on the long term cap gain when you donate it. e.g. I donate $10,000 in value of Apple. I write off $10,000 on my taxes, and benefit with a $2500 refund. If I sold it, I'd have nearly a $1500 tax bill (bought long enough ago, the basis is sub $100). Any trading along the way, and it's on you. Gains long or short are taxed on you. It's only the final donation that matters here. Edit - to address Anthony's comment on other answer - I sell my Apple, with a near $10,000 gain (it's really just $9900) and I am taxed $1500. Now I have $8500 cash I donate and get $2125 back in a tax refund. By donating the stock I am ahead nearly $375, and the charity, $1500." } ]

[ { "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": "546509", "title": "", "text": "Costs for home / small business equipment under US$10,000 don't have to be capitalized. They can be expensed (that is, claimed as an expense all in one year.) Unless this printer is one of those behemoths that collates, folds, staples, and mails medium-sized booklets, it cost less than that. Keep track of your costs. Ask the charity to pay you those costs for the product you generate, and then donate that amount of money back to them. This will be good for the charity because they'll correctly account for the cost of printing." }, { "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": "232736", "title": "", "text": "Do you have a broker? Any online brokerage (TD Ameritrade, E*Trade, Scott Trade, etc) offer the functionality that you want. If you're not interested in opening a brokerage account, you can search for threads here related to stock market simulation, since most of those services also provide the features that you want. If you do you have a physical broker at some firm, contact him/her and ask about the online tools that the brokerage offers. Almost all of them have portfolio management tools available to clients." }, { "docid": "252475", "title": "", "text": "A protection similar to FDIC for banks is provided to brokerage accounts' owners by SIPC. Neither FDIC nor SIPC provide protection or insurance against identity thefts or frauds, only bank/brokerage failures. Your investment losses are obviously not insured either. For fraud liability check your bank/brokerage policies, you can get insurance for identity theft from your insurance provider (its an optional coverage with many home-owner/renter insurance policies)." }, { "docid": "66626", "title": "", "text": "\"I recommend a Roth IRA. At your age you could turn 25K into a million and never pay taxes on these earnings. Of course there are yearly limits (5.5k) on the amount your can contribute to a Roth IRA account. If you haven't filed your taxes this year yet ... you can contribute 5.5K for last year and 5.5K for this year. Open two accounts at a discount brokerage firm. Trades should be about $10 or less per. Account one ... Roth IRA. Account two a brokerage account for the excess funds that can't be placed in the Roth IRA. Each year it will be easy transfer money into the Roth from this account. Be aware that you can't transfer stocks from brokerage acct to Roth IRA ... only cash. You can sell some stocks in brokerage and turn that into cash to transfer. This means settling up with the IRS on any gains/losses on that sale. Given your situation you'd likely have new cash to bring to table for the Roth IRA anyway. Invest in stocks and hold them for the long term. Do a google search for \"\"motley fool stock advisor\"\" and join. This is a premium service that picks two stocks to invest in each month. Invest small amounts (say $750) in each stock that they say you should buy. They will also tell you when to sell. They also give insights into why they selected the stock and why they are selling (aka learning experience). They pick quality companies. So if the economy is down you will still own a quality company that will make it through the storm. Avoid the temptation to load up on one stock. Follow the small amount rule mentioned above per stock. Good luck, and get in the market.\"" }, { "docid": "102442", "title": "", "text": "Some brokerages will allow you to enroll your account in a dividend reinvestment plan -- TD Ameritrade and I think Schwab for example. The way the plan works is that they would take your $4 and give you whatever fractional share of the ETF it is worth on the payment date. There are no fees associated with this purchase (or at least there are in the programs I've seen -- if you have to pay a fee, look for another brokerage). You may also be able to enroll specific securities instead of the entire account into dividend reinvestment. Call your brokerage to see what they offer." }, { "docid": "586851", "title": "", "text": "@JoeTaxpayer gave a great response to your first question. Here are some thoughts on the other two... 2) Transaction fees for mutual funds are tied to the class of shares you're buying and will be the same no matter where you buy them. A-shares have a front-end 'load' (the fee charged), and the lowest expenses, and can be liquidated without any fees. B-shares have no up-front load, but come with a 4-7 year period where they will charge you a fee to liquidate (technically called Contingent Deferred Sales Charge, CDSC), and slightly higher management fees, after which they often will convert to A-shares. C-shares have the highest management fees, and usually a 12- to 18-month period where they will charge a small percentage fee if you liquidate. There are lots of other share classes available, but they are tied to special accounts such as managed accounts and 401-K plans. Not all companies offer all share classes. C-shares are intended for shorter timeframes, eg 2-5 years. A and B shares work best for longer times. Use a B share if you're sure you won't need to take the money out until after the fee period ends. Most fund companies will allow you to exchange funds within the same fund family without charging the CDSC. EDIT: No-load funds don't charge a fee in or out (usually). They are a great option if they are available to you. Most self-service brokerages offer them. Few full-service brokerages offer them. The advantage of a brokerage versus personal accounts at each fund is the brokerage gives you a single view of things and a single statement, and buying and selling is easy and convenient. 3) High turnover rates in bond funds... depending on how actively the portfolio is managed, the fund company may deliver returns as a mix of both interest and capital gains, and the management expenses may be high with a lot of churn in the underlying portfolio. Bond values fall as interest rates rise, so (at least in the USA) be prepared to see the share values of the fund fall in the next few years. The biggest risk of a bond fund is that there is no maturity date, so there is no point in time that you have an assurance that your original investment will be returned to you." }, { "docid": "162577", "title": "", "text": "What I want to know is; How much does all this 'competition', advertising, marketing, etc etc actually increase how much people give as a total yearly sum of their earning? If 40 cents on the dollar is spend advertising and 'collecting' more money. Sure it works on the scale of a single successful charity. What is the cost to charities as a whole though? If someone gives away 2,000 a year to charity, and 19 charities all spend $100 chasing that $2000 dollars, they on average can prove they are 'making money' by spending to get that $100 'more'. But in reality, now instead of being able to give $2000 to the needy the person was actually only able to give $100. That is my fear when we start having charities operate as big business." }, { "docid": "412226", "title": "", "text": "There are no legal reasons preventing you from trading as a F-1 visa holder, as noted in this Money.SE answer. Per this article, here are the things you need to set up an account: What do I need to have for doing Stock trading as F1 student ? Typically, most of the stock brokerage firms require Social Security Number (SSN) for stock trading. The reason is that, for your capital gains, it is required by IRS for tax purposes. If you work on campus, then you would already get SSN as part of the job application process…Typically, once you get the on-campus job or work authorization using CPT or OPT , you use that offer letter and take all your current documents like Passport, I-20, I-94 and apply for SSN at Social Security Administration(SSA) Office, check full details at SSA Website . SSN is typically used to report job wages by employer for tax purposes or check eligibility of benefits to IRS/Government. I do NOT have SSN, Can I still do stock trading as F1 student ? While many stock brokerage firms require SSN, you are not out of luck, if you do not have one…you will have to apply for an ITIN Number ( Individual Taxpayer Identification Number ) and can use the same when applying for stock brokerage account. While some of the firms accept ITIN number, it totally depends on the stock brokering firm and you need to check with the one that you are interested in. The key thing is that you'll need either a SSN or ITIN to open a US-based brokerage account." }, { "docid": "32671", "title": "", "text": "\"The receiving Roth IRA custodian will almost certainly not charge you anything; they are eager to get their hands on the money. In fact, the easiest and most efficient way is to fill out the forms for opening a Roth IRA account with the new custodian (most of this can be done online, but it might be necessary to print out a paper form, sign it and send/fax it to the company), tell them that the Roth IRA will be funded by a trustee-to-trustee transfer from the current custodian, and tell them to go get the money from the online bank who is the current custodian of your Roth IRA account. Don't approach your online bank and tell them to send the money to your new Roth IRA custodian; it will cost money and take more time and the likelihood of a screw-up is way too high. The current custodian might charge you a fee for closing the account, or for \"\"breaking a CD\"\" if that savings account is a CD and you are withdrawing the money before the maturity date of the CD. This will be spelled out in the Roth IRA custodial agreement that you accepted when you opened the account (but most likely did not read in full when you received it, and might even have discarded). One final note: with just $11K, please do not open a brokerage account for your Roth IRA and invest in stocks, bonds etc. For now, invest all your Roth IRA in a single low-cost mutual fund (preferably an index fund such as the Vanguard S&P 500 Index fund or Fidelity Spartan 500 fund); you can branch out into more funds when you have more money in your Roth IRA. Investing in these funds does not need you to have a brokerage account; you can do it directly on the fund's website. Avoid (for now) the siren song of Exchange-Traded Funds (ETFs) because you need to have a brokerage account to buy and sell them. When you have more money in your Roth IRA account, say in ten years' time, you can start investing in individual stocks, ETFs and the like through a brokerage account, but don't do it now.\"" }, { "docid": "349417", "title": "", "text": "Your definition of 'outside your country' might need some redefinition, as there are three different things going on here . . . Your financial adviser appears to be highlighting the currency risk associated with point three. However, consider these risk scenarios . . . A) Your country enters a period of severe financial difficulty, and money markets shut down. Your brokerage becomes insolvent, and your investments are lost. In this scenario the fact of whether your investments were in an overseas index such as the S&P, or were purchased from an account denominated in a different currency, would be irrelevant. The only thing that would have mitigated this scenario is an account with an overseas broker. B) Your country's stock market enters a sustained and deep bear market, decimating the value of shares in its companies. In this scenario the fact of whether your investments were made in from a brokerage overseas, or were purchased from an account denominated in a different currency, would be irrelevant. The only thing that would have mitigate this scenario is investment in shares and indices outside your home country. Your adviser has a good point; as long as you intend to enjoy your retirement in your home country then it might be advisable to remove currency risk by holding an account in Rupees. However, you might like to consider reducing the other forms of risk by holding non-Indian securities to create a globally diversified portfolio, and also placing some of your capital in an account with a broker outside your home country (this may be very difficult to do in practice)." }, { "docid": "433809", "title": "", "text": "You probably bought the cross listed WestJet stock. If you wanted to buy shares on the TSE, I'd suspect you'd have to find a way to open a brokerage account within Canada and then you'd be able to buy the shares. However, this could get complicated to some extent as there could be requirements of Canadian tax stuff like a Social Insurance Number that may require some paperwork. In addition, you'd have to review tax law of both countries to determine how to appropriately report to each country your income as there are various rules around that. TD Waterhouse would be the Canadian subsidiary of TD Ameritrade though I haven't tried to create a Canadian brokerage account." }, { "docid": "81046", "title": "", "text": "To be safe you should donate the printer to the charity. Or even better, have the charity purchase it and you donate a equivalent number of dollars directed towards purchasing the equipment. Once your wife no longer volunteers with the charity it should be returned to the charity because they own it." }, { "docid": "505484", "title": "", "text": "\"Yes these are the number of shareholders that are not held in \"\"street name\"\" plus the different brokerages that hold the shares in \"\"street name\"\". So the stat is pointless since it really only lists the few people who own the stocks outside of a brokerage account and a bunch of wall street brokers.\"" }, { "docid": "475580", "title": "", "text": "\"Money market accounts, insured in the same way as other deposits, are strange hybrids of traditional bank deposits and bond mutual funds. Because of the high inflation of the 1970s, banks were starved of deposits and could not produce loans at sufficient rates. For this reason, they desired a way to fund loans, and Congress enacted the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act which permitted a new form of account that retained the functionality of a deposit account, such as checking and now electronic transfers, yet transferred the risk to the account thus most of the profit. This allowed banks to fund each others' new loans through packaging them into asset backed securities to be held in these special accounts. As an added \"\"protection\"\", they are not permitted to carry a market value less than what's owed to depositors and are forcibly liquidated and paid in such event. This is a rare occurrence because of the nature of the assets held: credit assets such as commercial paper, mortgages, and corporate bonds. This is the opposite case of deposits because so long as a bank can maintain payments on its liabilities and satisfy a few other regulatory requirements, non-regulation satisfying assets could theoretically carry a zero balance, meaning that a bank could owe depositors more than what could be paid by liquidating all assets. Money market accounts will typically pay a higher rate because of their structure. While inflation is low and immediate term interest rates set by the central bank are also low, the net figure will not appear high, but the ratio will be fantastic, usually something like 3x. The one downside to money market accounts is that withdrawals are restricted by frequency. This is not such a problem as before since brokerages are now issuing debit cards tied to brokerage accounts, and excess money can be \"\"swept\"\" into money market accounts, bypassing the regulatory restriction. In short, money market accounts are currently a far better choice than traditional checking accounts but pay less than savings accounts.\"" }, { "docid": "434066", "title": "", "text": "\"My Schwab panel has the following options: As an example, when I go in to \"\"Wire Transfer,\"\" it prompts me to select which Schwab account, then Domestic or International wire, then amount etc. This will likely depend on the brokerage, I don't think Scottrade or Zecco/Tradeking was this integrated. Personally, I keep brokerage funds pretty well segregated from the remainder of my finances. I transfer money in and out from a more used checking account to keep the accounting more simple.\"" }, { "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": "145892", "title": "", "text": "\"Because you've sold something you've received cash (or at least an entry on your brokerage statement to say you've got cash) so you should record that as a credit in your brokerage account in GnuCash. The other side of the entry should go into another account that you create called something like \"\"Open Positions\"\" and is usually marked as a Liability account type (if you need to mark it as such). If you want to keep an accurate daily tally of your net worth you can add a new entry to your Open Positions account and offset that against Income which will be either negative or positive depending on how the position has moved for/against you. You can also do this at a lower frequency or not at all and just put an entry in when your position closes out because you bought it back or it expired or it was exercised. My preferred method is to have a single entry in the Open Positions account with an arbitrary date near when I expect it to be closed and each time I edit that value (daily or weekly) so I only have the initial entry and the current adjust to look at which reduces the number of entries and confusion if there are too many.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "561377", "title": "", "text": "I don't understand the logic in the other answer, and I think it doesn't make sense, so here is my take: You pay taxes on income, not on sales price. So if you put X $ of your own money in the account and it becomes X + Y $ in the future, at the moment of liquidation, you will own taxes on the Y $. Never on the X $, as it was your own (already taxed) money to begin with. The difference between long-term and short-term gains just influences the tax rate on Y. If you donate the gain alone (the Y $) to charity, you can deduct Y from your tax base. So adding Y to your tax base and then deducting Y again obviously leaves your tax base at the old value, so you pay no extra taxes. Which seems logical, as you didn't make any money in the process. Aside from extreme cases where the deductible gain is too large a percentage from your income or negative, I don't see why this would ever be different. So you can take your original 100 $ back out and donate all gains, and be fine. Note that potential losses are seen different, as the IRA regulations are not symmetric." } ]

[ { "docid": "311834", "title": "", "text": "Some brokerages will let you withdraw/deposit in multiple jurisdictions. e.g. I used to use Interactive Brokers. I could deposit/withdraw to US and UK bank accounts, in the appropriate currencies. It helps to have a brokerage that provides good rates on forex exchange also, and they were very good on the bid/ask spread. It was possible to get interbank rates plus a very low commission." }, { "docid": "263088", "title": "", "text": "Keep in mind the ex-dividend date is different from the payable date (the day the dividend is paid). That means the market price will already have adjusted lower due to the dividend. Short answer: you get the lower price when reinvesting. So here's Vanguard's policy, it should be similar to most brokers: When reinvesting dividends, Vanguard Brokerage Services combines the cash distributions from the accounts of all clients who have requested reinvestment in the same security, and then uses that combined total to purchase additional shares of the security in the open market. Vanguard Brokerage will attempt to purchase the reinvestment shares by entering a market order at the market opening on the payable date. The new shares are divided proportionately among the clients' accounts, in whole and fractional shares rounded to three decimal places. If the total purchase can't be completed in one trade, clients will receive shares purchased at the weighted average price paid by Vanguard Brokerage Services." }, { "docid": "174033", "title": "", "text": "If I donate $10,000 to charity then I can deduct that $10,000 from my income and not pay income taxes on it. So if I make $50,000 a year then I will only pay income taxes on $40,000 instead of $50,000 since I donated $10,000 to charity. This is what is meant when charity contributions are said to be tax deductible. Don't feel like you have to donate to charity. You owe no one anything. You do more for others by working (assuming you work in the private sector). If you know of someone personally that is in need of aid then you could give them some help directly. I find this more effective then blindly dumping money in a bureaucratic, inefficient charity. I also find there are very few people in need of charity. Personally, I think charity donations are a way for people to feel good about themselves. They rarely care if their donations are effective." }, { "docid": "475580", "title": "", "text": "\"Money market accounts, insured in the same way as other deposits, are strange hybrids of traditional bank deposits and bond mutual funds. Because of the high inflation of the 1970s, banks were starved of deposits and could not produce loans at sufficient rates. For this reason, they desired a way to fund loans, and Congress enacted the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act which permitted a new form of account that retained the functionality of a deposit account, such as checking and now electronic transfers, yet transferred the risk to the account thus most of the profit. This allowed banks to fund each others' new loans through packaging them into asset backed securities to be held in these special accounts. As an added \"\"protection\"\", they are not permitted to carry a market value less than what's owed to depositors and are forcibly liquidated and paid in such event. This is a rare occurrence because of the nature of the assets held: credit assets such as commercial paper, mortgages, and corporate bonds. This is the opposite case of deposits because so long as a bank can maintain payments on its liabilities and satisfy a few other regulatory requirements, non-regulation satisfying assets could theoretically carry a zero balance, meaning that a bank could owe depositors more than what could be paid by liquidating all assets. Money market accounts will typically pay a higher rate because of their structure. While inflation is low and immediate term interest rates set by the central bank are also low, the net figure will not appear high, but the ratio will be fantastic, usually something like 3x. The one downside to money market accounts is that withdrawals are restricted by frequency. This is not such a problem as before since brokerages are now issuing debit cards tied to brokerage accounts, and excess money can be \"\"swept\"\" into money market accounts, bypassing the regulatory restriction. In short, money market accounts are currently a far better choice than traditional checking accounts but pay less than savings accounts.\"" }, { "docid": "546509", "title": "", "text": "Costs for home / small business equipment under US$10,000 don't have to be capitalized. They can be expensed (that is, claimed as an expense all in one year.) Unless this printer is one of those behemoths that collates, folds, staples, and mails medium-sized booklets, it cost less than that. Keep track of your costs. Ask the charity to pay you those costs for the product you generate, and then donate that amount of money back to them. This will be good for the charity because they'll correctly account for the cost of printing." }, { "docid": "177363", "title": "", "text": "From looking at HSBCs website, it looks like advanced customers are allowed free fund tranfers out of their checking/saving account. I would call the bank to guarantee that the transfers don't face a .5% fee for any outgoing transfer to another brokerage, as listed on this site. However, given that trades are as low as $6.88, I'm not sure she could save much by switching to another brokerage." }, { "docid": "315741", "title": "", "text": "It's not so much pros and cons as much as it is what are your savings goals? While it's best to start early to save money for retirement, you may have numerous short- to medium-term savings goals (school, down payment, etc). Here's a template you can consider. I would suggest that you open up an RRSP mutual fund or brokerage account and invest a certain amount that you feel free locking up for the next few decades and investing it in some sort of growth product (perhaps look at portfolios using the Couch Potato strategy). Then, also open up a TFSA mutual fund or brokerage account and use it to invest for medium-term goals (i.e. 5-10 years). Invest in products that will allow for some growth but with low chance of losing principle in that time frame. What I wouldn't do is open up a TFSA savings account and use it for day-to-day savings. The tax you save is negligible and you would need to keep track of deposits and withdrawals to ensure that you don't overcontribute for the tax year. Similarly, an RRSP savings account or GIC is far too conservative at your age, IMHO. Think of RRSP and TFSA as investment vehicles rather than accounts per se. Either type allows for you to invest in a vast array of products, including mutual funds, equities, some derivatives, gold, bonds, GICs, etc. To conclude, my view is to use RRSP to invest for conventional retirement goals, and use the TFSA to invest for medium-term and early retirement goals." }, { "docid": "403701", "title": "", "text": "This is really an extended comment on the last paragraph of @BenMiller's answer. When (the manager of) a mutual fund sells securities that the fund holds for a profit, or receives dividends (stock dividends, bond interest, etc.), the fund has the option of paying taxes on that money (at corporate rates) and distributing the rest to shareholders in the fund, or passing on the entire amount (categorized as dividends, qualified dividends, net short-term capital gains, and net long-term capital gains) to the shareholders who then pay taxes on the money that they receive at their own respective tax rates. (If the net gains are negative, i.e. losses, they are not passed on to the shareholders. See the last paragraph below). A shareholder doesn't have to reinvest the distribution amount into the mutual fund: the option of receiving the money as cash always exists, as does the option of investing the distribution into a different mutual fund in the same family, e.g. invest the distributions from Vanguard's S&P 500 Index Fund into Vanguard's Total Bond Index Fund (and/or vice versa). This last can be done without needing a brokerage account, but doing it across fund families will require the money to transit through a brokerage account or a personal account. Such cross-transfers can be helpful in reducing the amounts of money being transferred in re-balancing asset allocations as is recommended be done once or twice a year. Those investing in load funds instead of no-load funds should keep in mind that several load funds waive the load for re-investment of distributions but some funds don't: the sales charge for the reinvestment is pure profit for the fund if the fund was purchased directly or passed on to the brokerage if the fund was purchased through a brokerage account. As Ben points out, a shareholder in a mutual fund must pay taxes (in the appropriate categories) on the distributions from the fund even though no actual cash has been received because the entire distribution has been reinvested. It is worth keeping in mind that when the mutual fund declares a distribution (say $1.22 a share), the Net Asset Value per share drops by the same amount (assuming no change in the prices of the securities that the fund holds) and the new shares issued are at this lower price. That is, there is no change in the value of the investment: if you had $10,000 in the fund the day before the distribution was declared, you still have $10,000 after the distribution is declared but you own more shares in the fund than you had previously. (In actuality, the new shares appear in your account a couple of days later, not immediately when the distribution is declared). In short, a distribution from a mutual fund that is re-invested leads to no change in your net assets, but does increase your tax liability. Ditto for a distribution that is taken as cash or re-invested elsewhere. As a final remark, net capital losses inside a mutual fund are not distributed to shareholders but are retained within the fund to be written off against future capital gains. See also this previous answer or this one." }, { "docid": "225162", "title": "", "text": "Assuming a USA taxable account: Withdrawing funds from a brokerage account has nothing to do with taxes. Taxes are owed on the profit when you sell a stock, no matter what you do with the funds. Taxes are owed on any dividends the stock produces, no matter what you do with the dividend. The brokerage sends you a form 1099 each year that shows the amounts of dividends and profits. You have to figure out the taxes from that." }, { "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": "328703", "title": "", "text": "Yes, depending on what you're trying to achieve. If its just a symbolic gift - you can use a service like this. There are several companies providing this service, look them up, but the prices are fairly the same. You'll end up getting a real stock certificate, but it will cost a lot of overhead (around $40 to get the certificate, and then another $40 to deposit it into a brokerage account if you want to sell it on a stock exchange). So although the certificate is real and the person whose name on it is a full-blown shareholder, it doesn't actually have much value (unless you buy a Google or Apple stock, where the price is much much higher than the fees). Take into account that it takes around 2 months for the certificate to be issued and mailed to you, so time accordingly. Otherwise, you can open a custodial brokerage account, and use it to buy stocks for the minor. Both ways are secure and legal, each for its own purpose and with its own fees." }, { "docid": "359510", "title": "", "text": "\"Congrats on saving the money but unfortunately, you're looking for a 24% annual rate of return and that's not \"\"reasonable\"\" to expect. $200 per month, is $2,400 per year. $2,400/$10,000 is 24%. In a 1% savings account with spending of $200 per month spending you'll have about $7,882 at the end of the year. You'll earn about $90 of interest over the course of the year. I'm sure other people will have more specific opinions about the best way to deploy that money. I'd open a brokerage account (not an IRA, just a regular plain vanilla brokerage account), break off $5,000 and put it in to a low fee no commission S&P index fund; which CAN lose value. Put the rest in a savings account/checking account and just spend wisely.\"" }, { "docid": "232736", "title": "", "text": "Do you have a broker? Any online brokerage (TD Ameritrade, E*Trade, Scott Trade, etc) offer the functionality that you want. If you're not interested in opening a brokerage account, you can search for threads here related to stock market simulation, since most of those services also provide the features that you want. If you do you have a physical broker at some firm, contact him/her and ask about the online tools that the brokerage offers. Almost all of them have portfolio management tools available to clients." }, { "docid": "123570", "title": "", "text": "When you want to pay a bill on line there are several ways to do it. You can give them your credit card details: Name on Card, zip code, credit card number, and 3 or 4 digit security code on the back. Most of the information is available on the card or via an easy Google search. If the crook has your card they can use it to buy something. You can contact your bank's website and establish a one time or recurring transfer. You provide the information about the person/company. Your bank knows who you are because you used a secure system and your password. Their bank accepts the money because who would refuse money, they don't care who you are. You can provide the company with your bank info (bank number, your account number, and your name). If your bank limits their transactions via this method only to legitimate organizations, then your money will only be sent to legitimate organizations. But if the organization has no way of knowing who is on the other end of the phone or webpage, they may be withdrawing money from a bank account without the account owners permission. In the example article a person found a charity that had lax security standards, they were recognized by the bank as a legitimate organization, so the bank transferred the money. The charity will point to the form and say they had permission from the owner, but in reality they didn't. The subject of the article was correct, all the info required is on every check. It is just that most people are honest, and the few security hurdles that exist do stop most of the fraud." }, { "docid": "29399", "title": "", "text": "Re #2, consider an account at a credit union rather than a bank or brokerage firm. Whether you choose a savings account or a money market account, you're likely to get an account with lower fees (so it doesn't cost you money), and rates that are typically similar." }, { "docid": "434066", "title": "", "text": "\"My Schwab panel has the following options: As an example, when I go in to \"\"Wire Transfer,\"\" it prompts me to select which Schwab account, then Domestic or International wire, then amount etc. This will likely depend on the brokerage, I don't think Scottrade or Zecco/Tradeking was this integrated. Personally, I keep brokerage funds pretty well segregated from the remainder of my finances. I transfer money in and out from a more used checking account to keep the accounting more simple.\"" }, { "docid": "32671", "title": "", "text": "\"The receiving Roth IRA custodian will almost certainly not charge you anything; they are eager to get their hands on the money. In fact, the easiest and most efficient way is to fill out the forms for opening a Roth IRA account with the new custodian (most of this can be done online, but it might be necessary to print out a paper form, sign it and send/fax it to the company), tell them that the Roth IRA will be funded by a trustee-to-trustee transfer from the current custodian, and tell them to go get the money from the online bank who is the current custodian of your Roth IRA account. Don't approach your online bank and tell them to send the money to your new Roth IRA custodian; it will cost money and take more time and the likelihood of a screw-up is way too high. The current custodian might charge you a fee for closing the account, or for \"\"breaking a CD\"\" if that savings account is a CD and you are withdrawing the money before the maturity date of the CD. This will be spelled out in the Roth IRA custodial agreement that you accepted when you opened the account (but most likely did not read in full when you received it, and might even have discarded). One final note: with just $11K, please do not open a brokerage account for your Roth IRA and invest in stocks, bonds etc. For now, invest all your Roth IRA in a single low-cost mutual fund (preferably an index fund such as the Vanguard S&P 500 Index fund or Fidelity Spartan 500 fund); you can branch out into more funds when you have more money in your Roth IRA. Investing in these funds does not need you to have a brokerage account; you can do it directly on the fund's website. Avoid (for now) the siren song of Exchange-Traded Funds (ETFs) because you need to have a brokerage account to buy and sell them. When you have more money in your Roth IRA account, say in ten years' time, you can start investing in individual stocks, ETFs and the like through a brokerage account, but don't do it now.\"" }, { "docid": "260006", "title": "", "text": "Now a days, your stocks can be seen virtually through a brokerage account. Back in the days, a stock certificate was the only way to authenticate stock ownership. You can still request them though from the corporation you have shares in or your brokerage. It will have your name, corporation name and number of shares you have. You have to buy shares of a stock either through a brokerage or the corporation itself. Most stock brokerages are legit and are FDIC or SIPC insured. But your risks are your own loses. The $10 you are referring to is the trade commission fee the brokerage charges. When you place an order to buy or sell a stock the brokerage will charge you $10. So for example if you bought 1 share of a $20 stock. The total transaction cost will be $30. Depending on the state you live in, you can basically starting trading stocks at either 18 or 21. You can donate/gift your shares to virtually anyone. When you sell a stock and experience a profit, you will be charged a capital gains tax. If you buy a stock and sell it for a gain within 1 year, you will taxed up to 35% or your tax bracket but if you hold it for more than a year, you will taxed only 15% or your tax bracket." }, { "docid": "125195", "title": "", "text": "Since you've already maxed out your 401k and your IRA, if you wanted to invest more-- then it would either be in a brokerage account or a 529 (if you have kids/ intend on going back to school). As to investing versus paying off your loans -- the interest on them are small enough that it will depend on your preference. If you need the cash flow for investment purposes (ie if you are going to buy an investment property) then I would pay off the car loan first -- otherwise I would invest the money. Since you've already expressed that you wouldn't be too interested in paying the mortgage off early, I've left that off the table (I would prioritize car loan over mortgage for the cash flow reason) If you do open a brokerage account -- make sure you are minimizing your taxes by putting the 'right' type of assets in a tax advantaged account." } ]

[ { "docid": "272021", "title": "", "text": "Given that you are starting with a relatively small amount, you want a decent interest rate, and you want flexibility, I would consider fixed deposit laddering strategy. Let's say you have ₹15,000 to start with. Split this in to three components: Purchase all of the above at the same time. 30 days later, you will have the first FD mature. If you need this money, you use it. If you don't need it, purchase another 90-day fixed deposit. If you keep going this way, you will have a deposit mature every 30 days and can choose to use it or renew the fixed deposit. This strategy has some disadvantages to consider: As for interest rates, the length of the fixed deposit in positively related to the interest rate. If you want higher interest rates, elect for longer fixed deposit cycles.For instance, when you become more confident about your financial situation, replace the 30, 60, 90 day cycle with a 6, 12, 18 month cycle The cost of maintaining the short term deposit renewals and new purchases. If your bank does not allow such transactions through on line banking, you might spend more time than you like at a bank or on the phone with the bank You want a monthly dividend but this might not be the case with fixed deposits. It depends on your bank but I believe most Indian banks pay interest every three months" } ]

[ { "docid": "175968", "title": "", "text": "\"In a Roth IRA scenario, this $5,000 would be reduced to $3,750 if we assume a (nice and round) 25% tax rate. For the Traditional IRA, the full $5,000 would be invested. No, that's not how it works. Taxes aren't removed from your Roth account. You'll have $5,000 invested either way. The difference is that you'll have a tax deduction if you invest in a traditional IRA, but not a Roth. So you'll \"\"save\"\" $1,250 in taxes up front if you invest in a traditional IRA versus a Roth. The flip side is when you withdraw the money. Since you've already paid tax on the Roth investment, and it grows tax free, you'll pay no tax when you withdraw it. But you'll pay tax on the investment and the gains when you withdraw from a traditional IRA. Using your numbers, you'd pay tax on $2.2MM from the traditional IRA, but NO TAX on $2.2MM from the Roth. At that point, you've saved over $500,000 in taxes. Now if you invested the tax savings from the traditional IRA and it earned the same amount, then yes, you'd end up in the same place in the end, provided you have the same marginal tax rate. But I suspect that most don't invest that savings, and if you withdraw significant amount, you'll likely move into higher tax brackets. In your example, suppose you only had $3,750 of \"\"discretionary\"\" income that you could put toward retirement. You could put $5,000 in a traditional IRA (since you'll get a $1,250 tax deduction), or $3,750 in a Roth. Then your math works out the same. If you invest the same amount in either, though, the math on the Roth is a no-brainer.\"" }, { "docid": "172913", "title": "", "text": "What is the best form of investment? It only depends on your goals... The perfect amount of money depends also on your particular situation. The first thing you should start getting familiar with is the notion of portfolio and diversification. Managing risk is also fundamental especially with the current market funkiness... Start looking at index based ETFs -Exchange Traded Funds- and Balanced Mutual Funds to begin with. Many discounted online brokerage companies in the USA offer good training and knowledge centers. Some of them will also let you practice with a demo account that let you invest virtual money to make you feel comfortable with the interface and also with investing in general." }, { "docid": "569206", "title": "", "text": "\"I would let them get their hands dirty, learn by practicing. Below you can find a simple program to generate your own efficient frontier, just 29 lines' python. Depending on the age, adult could help in the activity but I would not make it too lecturing. With child-parent relationship, I would make it a challenge, no easy money anymore -- let-your-money work-for-you -attitude, create the efficient portfolio! If there are many children, I would do a competition over years' time-span or make many small competitions. Winner is the one whose portfolio is closest to some efficient portfolio such as lowest-variance-portfolio, I have the code to calculate things like that but it is trivial so build on the code below. Because the efficient frontier is a good way to let participants to investigate different returns and risk between assets classes like stocks, bonds and money, I would make the thing more serious. The winner could get his/her designed portfolio (to keep it fair in your budget, you could limit choices to index funds starting with 1EUR investment or to ask bottle-price-participation-fee, bring me a bottle and you are in. No money issue.). Since they probably don't have much money, I would choose free software. Have fun! Step-by-step instructions for your own Efficient Frontier Copy and run the Python script with $ python simple.py > .datSimple Plot the data with $ gnuplot -e \"\"set ylabel 'Return'; set xlabel 'Risk'; set terminal png; set output 'yourEffFrontier.png'; plot '.datSimple'\"\" or any spreadsheet program. Your first \"\"assets\"\" could well be low-risk candies and some easy-to-stale products like bananas -- but beware, notice the PS. Simple Efficient-frontier generator P.s. do not stagnate with collectibles, such as candies and toys, and retailer products, such as mangos, because they are not really good \"\"investments\"\" per se, a bit more like speculation. The retailer gets a huge percentage, for further information consult Bogleheads.org like here about collectible items.\"" }, { "docid": "502051", "title": "", "text": "After paying off debts and the other obvious low hanging fruit, you need to start investing. With your time frame, most advice you'll find will say go for an all equities index fund. However, the market is hot and you can do better than the S&P average of 12%. Especially considering a downturn is on coming Take your time and find a safe investment fund to start building your portfolio. I run a PE fund buying Middle Market value add properties. I work exclusively in this market because it provides consistent income that continues through downturns, and we can safely give investors 15% tax mitigated return, every time. PM me if your are interested." }, { "docid": "95282", "title": "", "text": "\"Contribute as much as you can. When do you want to retire and how much income do you think you'll need? A $1M portfolio yielding 5% will yield $50,000/year. Do some research about how to build a portfolio... this site is a good start, but check out books on retirement planning and magazines like Money and Kiplinger. If you don't speak \"\"money\"\" or are intimidated by investing, look for a fee-based financial advisor whom you are comfortable with.\"" }, { "docid": "335136", "title": "", "text": "\"Typically you diversify a portfolio to reduce risk. The S&P 500 is a collection of large-cap stocks; a diversified portfolio today probably contains a mix of large cap, small cap, bonds, international equity and cash. Right now, if you have a bond component, that part of your portfolio isn't performing as well. The idea of diversification is that you \"\"smooth out\"\" the ups and downs of the market and come out ahead in most situations. If you don't have a bond or cash component in your portfolio, you may have picked (or had someone pick for you) lousy funds. Without more detail, that's about all that can be said. EDIT: You provided more detail, so I want to add a little to my answer. Basically, you're in a fund that has high fees (1.58% annually) and performance that trails the mid-cap index. The S&P 500 is a large-cap index (large cap == large company), so a direct comparison is not necessarily meaningful. Since you seem to be new at this, I'd recommend starting out with the Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund (VTSMX) or ETF (VTI). This is a nice option because it represents the entire stock market and is cheap... it's a good way to get started without knowing alot. If your broker charges a transaction fee to purchase Vanguard funds and you don't want to change brokers or pay ETF commissions, look for or ask about transaction-fee free \"\"broad market\"\" indexes. The expense ratio should be below 0.50% per year and optimally under 0.20%. If you're not having luck finding investment options, swtich to a discount broker like TD Ameritrade, Schwab, ScottTrade or Fidelity (in no particular order)\"" }, { "docid": "18436", "title": "", "text": "Dollar cost averaging is an great way to diversify your investment risk. There's mainly 2 things you want to achieve when you're saving for retirement: 1) Keep your principal investment; 2) Grow it. The best methods recommended by most financial institutions are as follows: 1) Diversification; 2) Re-balance. There are a lot of additional recommendations, but these are my main take away. When you dollar cost average, you're essentially diversifying your exchange risk between the value of the funds you're investing. Including the ups and downs of the value of the underlying asset, may actually be re-balancing. Picking your asset portfolio: 1) You generally want to include within your 401k or any other invest, classes of investments that do not always move in total correlation as this allows you to diversify risk; 2) I'm making a lot of assumptions here - since you may have already picked your asset classes. Consider utilizing the following to tell you when to buy or sell your underlying investment: 1) Google re-balance excel sheet to find several examples of re-balance tools to help you always buy low and sell high; 2) Enter your portfolio investment; 3) Utilize the movement to invest in the underlying assets based on market movement; and 4) Execute in an emotionless way and stick to your plan. Example - Facts 1) I have 1 CAD and 1 USD in my 401k. Plan I will invest 1 dollar in the ratio of 50/50 - forever. Let's start in 2011 since we were closer to par: 2010 - 1 CAD (value 1 USD) and 1 USD (value 1 USD) = 50/50 ratio 2011 start - 1 CAD ( value .8 USD) and 1 USD (value 1 USD) = 40/60 ratio 2011 - rebalance - invest 1 USD as follows purchase .75 CAD (.60 USD) and purchase .40 USD = total of 1 USD reinvested 2011 end - 1.75 CAD (value 1.4USD) and 1.4 USD (value 1.4 USD) - 50/50 ratio As long as the fundamentals of your underlying assets (i.e. you're not expecting hyperinflation or your asset to approach 0), this approach will always build value over time since you're always buying low and selling high while dollar averaging. Keep in mind it does reduce your potential gains - but if you're looking to max gain, it may mean you're also max potential loss - unless you're able to find A symmetrical investments. I hope this helps." }, { "docid": "469141", "title": "", "text": "When you are starting out using a balanced fund can be quite advantageous. A balanced fund is represents a diversified portfolio in single fund. The primary advantage of using a balanced fund is that with it being a single fund it is easier to meet the initial investment minimum. Later once you have enough to transition to a portfolio of diversified funds you would sell the fund and buy the portfolio. With a custom portfolio, you will be better able to target your risk level and you might also be able to use lower cost funds. The other item to check is do any of the funds that you might be interested in for the diversified portfolio have lower initial investment option if you can commit to adding money on a specified basis (assuming that you are able to). Also there might be an ETF version of a mutual fund and for those the initial investment amount is just the share price. The one thing to be aware of is make sure that you can buy enough shares that you can rebalance (holding a single share makes it hard to sell some gain when rebalancing). I would stay away from individual stocks until you have a much larger portfolio, assuming that you want to invest with a diversified portfolio. The reason being that it takes a lot more money to create a diversified portfolio out of individual stocks since you have to buy whole shares. With a mutual fund or ETF, your underlying ownership of can be fractional with no issue as each fund share is going to map into a fraction of the various companies held and with mutual funds you can buy fractional shares of the fund itself." }, { "docid": "80844", "title": "", "text": "After looking at your profile, I see your age...28. Still a baby. At your age, and given your profession, there really is no need to build investment income. You are still working and should be working for many years. If I was you, I'd be looking to do a few different things: Eliminating debt reduces risk, and also reduces the need for future income. Saving for, and purchasing a home essentially freezes rent increases. If home prices double in your area, in theory, so should rent prices. If you own a home you might see some increases in taxes and insurance rates, but they are minor in comparison. This also reduces the need for future income. Owning real estate is a great way to build residual income, however, there is a lot of risk and even if you employ a management company there is a lot more hands on work and risk. Easier then that you can build an after tax investment portfolio. You can start off with mutual funds for diversification purposes and only after you have built a sizable portfolio should (if ever) make the transition to individual stocks. Some people might suggest DRIPs, but given the rate at which you are investing I would suggest the pain of such accounts is more hassle then it is worth." }, { "docid": "173084", "title": "", "text": "\"There seems to be a common sentiment that no investor can consistently beat the market on returns. What evidence exists for or against this? First off, even if the markets were entirely random there would be individual investors that would consistently beat the market throughout their lifetime entirely by luck. There are just so many people this is a statistical certainty. So let's talk about evidence of beating the market due to persistent skill. I should hedge by saying there isn't a lot of good data here as most understandably most individual investors don't give out their investment information but there are some ok datasets. There is weak evidence, for instance, that the best individual investors keep outperforming and interestingly that the trading of individual investors can predict future market movements. Though the evidence is more clear that individual investors make a lot of mistakes and that these winning portfolios are not from commonly available strategies and involve portfolios that are much riskier than most would recommend. Is there really no investment strategy that would make it likely for this investor to consistently outperform her benchmark? There are so, many, papers (many reasonable even) out there about how to outperform benchmarks (especially risk-adjusted basis). Not too mention some advisers with great track records and a sea of questionable websites. You can even copy most of what Buffet does if you want. Remember though that the average investor by definition makes the average \"\"market\"\" return and then pays fees on top of that. If there is a strategy out there that is obviously better than the market and a bunch of people start doing it, it quickly becomes expensive to do and becomes part the market. If there was a proven, easy to implement way to beat the market everyone would do it and it would be the market. So why is it that on this site or elsewhere, whenever an active trading strategy is discussed that potentially beats the market, there is always a claim that it probably won't work? To start with there are a large number of clearly bad ideas posed here and elsewhere. Sometimes though the ideas might be good and may even have a good chance to beat the market. Like so many of the portfolios that beat the market though and they add a lot of uncertainty and in particular, for this personal finance site, risk that the person will not be able to live comfortably in retirement. There is so much uncertainty in the market and that is why there will always be people that consistently outperform the market but at the same time why there will be few, if any, strategies that will outperform consistently with any certainty.\"" }, { "docid": "60750", "title": "", "text": "The numbers you have quoted don't add up. For Rs 30,000 / month is 3,60,000 a year. The tax should be around 11,000 again this will be reduced by the contributions to PF. You have indicated a tax deductions of 18,000. There are multiple ways to save taxes. Since you are beginner, investments into section 80C should give you required tax benefits. Please read this article in Economic Times" }, { "docid": "450586", "title": "", "text": "I was just wondering, are banks in India federally insured? Yes the Banks in India are insured for Principal and Interest upto Rs 1,00,000/- per holding type per Bank. See the DICGC website. So if you have one or more accounts [in the same or different branches of a bank] and the Principal is say Rs 98,000/- and the interest accrued at the time of liquidation is say Rs 4,000/- you will get Rs 1,00,000/- If you have more than Rs 1,00,000/- you will not get only 1 lac. If you have an individual account, and your wife has an account and both of you have a joint account. The total limit will be Rs 3,00,000/-. If you are guardian to your Children, its again considered separate. RBI Site as a good example on this. If you open Accounts in Different Banks, the limit increases. What happen if banks like Yes Bank or IndusInd bank goes bankrupt? Both Yes Bank and IndusInd are participants in the DICGC and are insured. See the full list here. How will we recover money in those cases? Although insured, the process to get the money back would be time consuming. More often the bank is placed under moratorium, an effort is made for amalgamation or reconstruction ... Only if everything fails, the bank goes into liquidation. So it could be anywhere from few months to few years for you to see you money." }, { "docid": "443391", "title": "", "text": "\"I'll start by saying accounts that require a certain number of transactions are a horrible place to put any savings and, in fact, I'd stay away all together. However, you've asked a lot of questions here and are clearly more in-tune with this topic than most. If I was young again and just starting to try to pile some money together, I would absolutely chase the highest interest rates by taking advantage of accounts like this. If you have the discipline to hit the transaction counts and maintain the minimum balance AND leave your savings funds alone, do it. If for a single second you think you'll go out one Friday night and blow your emergency fund, put it somewhere else. I used to keep really elaborate spreadsheets of my spending and savings with goals set and progress charts, etc. I see the argument that the transaction count is not worth the gain in interest, but you've said you're not dealing with big numbers and 5% of $5,000 is about $255 after a year. It's not a lot but it's 5x more than a \"\"normal\"\" no transaction hoops high-yield savings account; you get five years of interest each year. So, yes, this is an amount of money you could probably generate by frequenting starbucks less, but presumably you're already doing that. Obviously you would keep this to an upper account balance of $5,000 and put the rest in a vanilla high-yield savings; then when administering the transactions becomes too much work close the account.\"" }, { "docid": "279288", "title": "", "text": "\"Simple answer: Yes A better question to ask might be \"\"Should I invest all my savings to buy 4 shares of a single stock.\"\" My answer to that would be \"\"probably not\"\". If this is your first venture into the world of owning publicly traded companies, then you're better off starting with some sort of mutual fund or ETF. This will start your portfolio with some amount of diversification so you don't have all your eggs in one basket. If you really want to get into the world of picking individual stocks, a good rule of thumb to follow is to invest $1 in some sort of indexed fund for every $1 you invest in an individual stock. This gives you some diversification while still enabling you to scratch that itch of owning a part of Apple or whatever other company you think is going in the right direction.\"" }, { "docid": "549402", "title": "", "text": "This answer will assume you know more math than most. An ideal case: For the point of argument, first consider the following admittedly incorrect assumptions: 1) The prices of all assets in your investment universe are continuously differentiable functions of time. 2) Investor R (for rebalance) continuously buys and sells in order to maintain a constant proportion of each of several investments in his portfolio. 3) Investor P (for passive) starts with the same portfolio as R, but neither buys nor sells Then under the assumptions of no taxes or trading costs, it is a mathematical theorem that investor P's portfolio return fraction will be the weighted arithmetic mean of the return fractions of all the individual investments, whereas investor R will obtain the weighted geometric mean of the return fractions of the individual investments. It's also a theorem that the weighted arithmetic mean is ALWAYS greater than or equal to the weighted geometric mean, so regardless of what happens in the market (given the above assumptions) the passive investor P does at least as well as the rebalancing investor R. P will do even better if taxes and trading costs are factored in. The real world: Of course prices aren't continuously differentiable or even continuous, nor can you continuously trade. (Indeed, under such assumptions the optimal investing strategy would be to sample the prices sufficiently rapidly to capture the derivatives and then to move all your assets to the stock increasing at the highest relative rate. This crazy momentum trading would explosively destabilize the market and cause the assumptions to break.) The point of this is not to argue for or against rebalancing, but to point out that any argument for rebalancing which continues to hold under the above ideal assumptions is bogus. (Many such arguments do.) If a stockbroker standing to profit from commission pushes rebalancing on you with an argument that still holds under the above assumptions then he is profiting off of BS." }, { "docid": "148541", "title": "", "text": "\"Your only real alternative is something like T-Bills via your broker or TreasuryDirect or short-term bond funds like the Vanguard Short-Term Investment-Grade Fund. The problem with this strategy is that these options are different animals than a money market. You're either going to subject yourself to principal risk or lose the flexibility of withdrawing the money. A better strategy IMO is to look at your overall portfolio and what you actually want. If you have $100k in a money market, and you are not going to need $100k in cash for the forseeable future -- you are \"\"paying\"\" (via the low yield) for flexibility that you don't need. If get your money into an appropriately diversified portfolio, you'll end up with a more optimal return. If the money involved is relatively small, doing nothing is a real option as well. $5,000 at 0.5% yields $25, and a 5% return yields only $250. If you need that money soon to pay tuition, use for living expenses, etc, it's not worth the trouble.\"" }, { "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": "2376", "title": "", "text": "It depends on whether you want a career as a fund manager/ analyst or if you want to be an investor/ trader. A fund manager will have many constraints that a private investor doesn’t have, as they are managing other people’s money. If they do invest their own money as well they usually would invest it differently from how they invest the fund's money. Many would just get someone else to invest their money for them, just as a surgeon would get another surgeon to operate on a family member. My suggestion to you is to find a job you like doing and build up your savings. Whilst you are building up your savings read some books. You said you don’t know much about the financial markets, then learn about them. Get yourself a working knowledge about both fundamental and technical analysis. Work out which method of analysis (if not both) suits you best and you would like to know more about. As you read you will get a better idea if you prefer to be a long term investor or a short term trader or somewhere in-between or a combination of various methods. Now you will start to get an idea of what type of books and areas of analysis you would like to concentrate on. Once you have a better idea of what you would like to do and have gained some knowledge, then you can develop your investment/trading plan and start paper trading. Once you are happy with you plan and your paper trading you can start trading with a small account balance (not more than $10,000 and preferably under $5,000). No matter how well you did with paper trading you will always do worse with real money at first due to your emotions being in it now. So always start off small. If you want to become good at something it takes time and a lot of hard work. You can’t go from knowing nothing to making a million dollars per year without putting in the hard yards first." }, { "docid": "323145", "title": "", "text": "\"I have personally invested $5,000 in a YieldStreet offering (a loan being used by a company looking to expand a ridesharing fleet), and would certainly recommend taking a closer look if they fit your investment goals and risk profile. (Here's a more detailed review I wrote on my website.) YieldStreet is among a growing crop of companies launched as a result of legislative and regulatory changes that began with the JOBS Act in 2012 (that's a summary from my website that I wrote after my own efforts to parse the new rules) but didn't fully go into effect until last year. Most of them are in Real Estate or Angel/Venture, so YieldStreet is clearly looking to carve out a niche by assembling a rather diverse collection of offerings (including Real Estate, but also other many other categories). Unlike angel/venture platforms (and more like the Real Estate platforms), YieldStreet only offers secured (asset-backed) investments, so in theory there's less risk of loss of principal (though in practice, these platforms haven't been through a serious stress test). So far I've stuck with relatively short-term investments on the debt crowdfunding platforms (including YieldStreet), and at least for the one I chose, it includes monthly payments of both principal and interest, so you're \"\"taking money off the table\"\" right away (though presumably then are faced with how to redeploy, which is another matter altogether!) My advice is to start small while you acclimate to the various platforms and investment options. I know I was overwhelmed when I first decided to try one out, and the way I got over that was to decide on the maximum I was willing to lose entirely, and then focus on finding the first opportunity that looked reasonable and would maximize what I could learn (in my case it was a $1,000 in a fix-and-flip loan deal via PeerStreet).\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "472585", "title": "", "text": "I don't think it makes sense to invest in an FD since. 1.) A 30 day FD is not very likely to give you 8-9% 2.) Inflation is so high in India that your losing money even though you think that you are doing well enough. I would suggest you to expect a larger return and try hedging your portfolio correctly. For example you can buy a stock which is likely to go higher, and to limit your risks, you can buy a put option on the same stock, so even if the price falls drastically, you can exercise your option and not lose anything except for the premium you paid. Good luck:)" } ]

[ { "docid": "194279", "title": "", "text": "\"I find it interesting that you didn't include something like [Total Bond Market](http://stockcharts.com/freecharts/perf.html?VBMFX), or [Intermediate-Term Treasuries](http://stockcharts.com/freecharts/perf.html?VBIIX), in your graphic. If someone were to have just invested in the DJI or SP500, then they would have ignored the tenants of the Modern Portfolio Theory and not diversified adequately. I wouldn't have been able to stomach a portfolio of 100% stocks, commodities, or metals. My vote goes for: 1.) picking an asset allocation that reflects your tolerance for risk (a good starting point is \"\"age in bonds,\"\" i.e. if you're 30, then hold 30% in bonds); 2.) save as if you're not expecting annualized returns of %10 (for example) and save more; 3.) don't try to pick the next winner, instead broadly invest in the market and hold it. Maybe gold and silver are bubbles soon to burst -- I for one don't know. I don't give the \"\"notion in the investment community\"\" much weight -- as it always is, someday someone will be right, I just don't know who that someone is.\"" }, { "docid": "124762", "title": "", "text": "he general advice I get is that the younger you are the more higher risk investments you should include in your portfolio. I will be frank. This is a rule of thumb given out by many lay people and low-level financial advisors, but not by true experts in finance. It is little more than an old wive's tale and does not come from solid theory nor empirical work. Finance theory says the following: the riskiness of your portfolio should (inversely) correspond to your risk aversion. Period. It says nothing about your age. Some people become more risk-averse as they get older, but not everyone. In fact, for many people it probably makes sense to increase the riskiness of their portfolio as they age because the uncertainty about both wealth (social security, the value of your house, the value of your human capital) and costs (how many kids you will have, the rate of inflation, where you will live) go down as you age so your overall level of risk falls over time without a corresponding mechanical increase in risk aversion. In fact, if you start from the assumption that people's aversion is to not having enough money at retirement, you get the result that people should invest in relatively safe securities until the probability of not having enough to cover their minimum needs gets small, then they invest in highly risky securities with any money above this threshold. This latter result sounds reasonable in your case. At this point it appears unlikely that you will be unable to meet your minimum needs--I'm assuming here that you are able to appreciate the warnings about underfunded pensions in other answers and still feel comfortable. With any money above and beyond what you consider to be prudent preparation for retirement, you should hold a risky (but still fully diversified) portfolio. Don't reduce the risk of that portion of your portfolio as you age unless you find your personal risk aversion increasing." }, { "docid": "323067", "title": "", "text": "As a matter of fact, I invest small sums in stable stocks every month (in fact, much lesser than the $50 you are talking about). More than the return on investment, I gained a lot of knowledge keeping track of my stocks and this now helps me pick my stocks better. And the portfolio is doing great too. So, it is a good idea to start small and invest regularly." }, { "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": "201794", "title": "", "text": "Suppose you're writing a put with a strike price of 80. Say the share's(underlying asset) price goes down to 70. So the holder of the put will exercise the option. Ie he has a 'right to sell' a share worth 70 for rs 80. Whereas a put option writer has an 'obligation to buy' at rs 80 a share trading at rs 70. Always think from the perspective of the holder. If the holder exercises the option, the writer will suffer a loss. Maximum loss he suffers will be the break even FSP, which is Strike price reduced by the premium paid.. If he doesn't exercise the option the writer will make a profit, which can maximum be the put premium received." }, { "docid": "482824", "title": "", "text": "December, 9, 2011 (01:30pm) :- December rally comes to be end yesterday. on 1st December Nifty starts with the bullish mark of 5000 but all these rally are hurted by the non - confidence on the FDI policy in multi brand but little bit effect also comes from the hearing on 2G spectrum case in which our home minister Mr. Chidambaram are on the accused on the trials. That's why investors are dissatisfy and starts selling on the Nifty. Our domestic Institutional investors are totally in selling position on 7th December, they sold Rs 190.11 & on 8th December, they are sold Rs 197.51 in stock market. Nifty have strong support at 4850 above this level it's trend totally bullish side." }, { "docid": "148541", "title": "", "text": "\"Your only real alternative is something like T-Bills via your broker or TreasuryDirect or short-term bond funds like the Vanguard Short-Term Investment-Grade Fund. The problem with this strategy is that these options are different animals than a money market. You're either going to subject yourself to principal risk or lose the flexibility of withdrawing the money. A better strategy IMO is to look at your overall portfolio and what you actually want. If you have $100k in a money market, and you are not going to need $100k in cash for the forseeable future -- you are \"\"paying\"\" (via the low yield) for flexibility that you don't need. If get your money into an appropriately diversified portfolio, you'll end up with a more optimal return. If the money involved is relatively small, doing nothing is a real option as well. $5,000 at 0.5% yields $25, and a 5% return yields only $250. If you need that money soon to pay tuition, use for living expenses, etc, it's not worth the trouble.\"" }, { "docid": "258291", "title": "", "text": "December, 7, 2011 ( 01:40 pm) :- Reliance industries buy which is chain by Mr. Mukesh Ambani, company planes to offer 4 G services as a low Cost by which they help the growth of Indians. Company plans to launch their tab around Rs 3500 & with data download or uploading facility for 10 Rs of every 1 GB. If company able to provided all there technology, Reliance will be the next year favorite stock for many investors. But now, Reliance have strong resistance at Rs XXX & support at Rs XXX above this trend bullish side." }, { "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": "422821", "title": "", "text": "ULIP insurance plan ULIP is Unit Linked Insurance Plan. The premium you pay, a small part goes towards covering life insurance. The Balance is invested into Stock Markets. Most ULIP would give you an option to choose from Debt Funds [100% safe buy low returns 5-7%] or Equity [High Risks, Returns can be around 15%]. Or a mix of both. ULIP are not a good way to save money. There are quite a few hidden fees that actually reduce the return. So notionally even if returns shown are great, in effect it is quite less. For example the premium you pay in first year, say Rs 10,000/- Rs 2,500/- goes towards commission. And say Rs 100 goes towards insurance. Balance Rs 7,400/- units are purchased in your account. Even if these grow by 20%, you are still in loss. Ofcousre, the commissions go down year after year and stop at 5%. Then there is fund management fees that you don't get to see. There is maintenance fee that is deduced from your balance. Thus the entire method of charging is not transparent. Life insurance from LIC There are broadly 2 types of Life Insurance plans Money Back / Endowment Plan. The concept here is again same, you pay a premium and part of it goes toward Insurance. The balance LIC invests in safe bonds. Every year a bonus is declared; generally less than Bank rate. At the end of the plan you get more than what you paid in premium. However if you had kept the same in Bank FD, you would have got more money back. So if you die, your nominee would get Insurance plus bonus. If you survive you get all the accumulated bonus. Pure Term Plan. Here the premium is quite less for the sum insured. Here if you die, your nominee would get insurance. If you survive you don't get anything." }, { "docid": "23387", "title": "", "text": "\"You need to have 3 things if you are considering short-term trading (which I absolutely do not recommend): The ability to completely disconnect your emotions from your gains and losses (yes, even your gains but especially your losses). The winning/losing on a daily basis will cause you to start taking unnecessary risk in order to win again. If you can't disconnect your emotions, then this isn't the game for you. The lowest possible trading costs to enter and exit a position. People will talk about 1% trading costs; that rule-of-thumb doesn't apply anymore. Personally, my trading costs are a total 13.9 basis points to enter and exit a $10,000 position and I think it's still too high (that's just a hair above one-eighth of 1% for you non-traders). The ability to \"\"gut-check\"\" and exit a losing position FAST. Don't hesitate and don't hope for it to go up. GTFO. If you are serious about short-term trading then you must close all positions on a daily basis. Don't do margin in today's market as many valuations are high and some industries are not trending as they have in the past. The leverage will kill you. It's not a question of \"\"if\"\", it's a when. You're new. Don't trade anything larger than a $5,000 position, no matter what. Don't hold more than 10% of your portfolio in the same industry. Don't be afraid to sit on 50% cash or more for months at a time. Use money market funds to park cash because they are T+1 settlement and most firms will let you trade the stock without cash as long as you effect the money market trade on the same day since stock settlement is T+3.\"" }, { "docid": "477646", "title": "", "text": "\"Diversification is spreading your investments around so that one point of risk doesn't sink your whole portfolio. The effect of having a diversified portfolio is that you've always got something that's going up (though, the corollary is that you've also always got something going down... winning overall comes by picking investments worth investing in (not to state the obvious or anything :-) )) It's worth looking at the different types of risk you can mitigate with diversification: Company risk This is the risk that the company you bought actually sucks. For instance, you thought gold was going to go up, and so you bought a gold miner. Say there are only two -- ABC and XYZ. You buy XYZ. Then the CEO reveals their gold mine is played out, and the stock goes splat. You're wiped out. But gold does go up, and ABC does gangbusters, especially now they've got no competition. If you'd bought both XYZ and ABC, you would have diversified your company risk, and you would have been much better off. Say you invested $10K, $5K in each. XYZ goes to zero, and you lose that $5K. ABC goes up 120%, and is now worth $11K. So despite XYZ bankrupting, you're up 10% on your overall position. Sector risk You can categorize stocks by what \"\"sector\"\" they're in. We've already talked about one: gold miners. But there are many more, like utilities, bio-tech, transportation, banks, etc. Stocks in a sector will tend to move together, so you can be right about the company, but if the sector is out of favor, it's going to have a hard time going up. Lets extend the above example. What if you were wrong about gold going up? Then XYZ would still be bankrupt, and ABC would be making less money so they went down as well; say, 20%. At that point, you've only got $4K left. But say that besides gold, you also thought that banks were cheap. So, you split your investment between the gold miners and a couple of banks -- lets call them LMN and OP -- for $2500 each in XYZ, ABC, LMN, and OP. Say you were wrong about gold, but right about banks; LMN goes up 15%, and OP goes up 40%. At that point, your portfolio looks like this: XYZ start $2500 -100% end $0 ABC start $2500 +120% end $5500 LMN start $2500 +15% end $2875 OP start $2500 +40% end $3500 For a portfolio total of: $11,875, or a total gain of 18.75%. See how that works? Region/Country/Currency risk So, now what if everything's been going up in the USA, and everything seems so overpriced? Well, odds are, some area of the world is not over-bought. Like Brazil or England. So, you can buy some Brazilian or English companies, and diversify away from the USA. That way, if the market tanks here, those foreign companies aren't caught in it, and could still go up. This is the same idea as the sector risk, except it's location based, instead of business type based. There is an additional twist to this -- currencies. The Brits use the pound, and the Brazilians use the real. Most small investors don't think about this much, but the value of currencies, including our dollar, fluctuates. If the dollar has been strong, and the pound weak (as it has been, lately), then what happens if that changes? Say you own a British bank, and the dollar weakens and the pound strengthens. Even if that bank doesn't move at all, you would still make a gain. Example: You buy British bank BBB for 40 pounds a share, when each pound costs $1.20. Say after a while, BBB is still 40 pounds/share, but the dollar weakened and the pound strengthened, such that each pound is now worth $1.50. You could sell BBB, and because of the currency exchange once you've got it converted back to dollars you'd have a 25% gain. Market cap risk Sometimes big companies do well, sometimes it's small companies. The small caps are riskier but higher returning. When you think about it, small and mid cap stocks have much more \"\"room to run\"\" than large caps do. It's much easier to double a company worth $1 billion than it is to double a company worth $100 billion. Investment types Stocks aren't the only thing you can invest in. There's also bonds, convertible bonds, CDs, preferred stocks, options and futures. It can get pretty complicated, especially the last two. But each of these investment behaves differently; and again the idea is to have something going up all the time. The classical mix is stocks and bonds. The idea here is that when times are good, the stocks go up; when times are bad, the bonds go up (because they're safer, so more people want them), but mostly they're there to providing steady income and help keep your portfolio from cratering along with the stocks. Currently, this may not work out so well; stocks and bonds have been moving in sync for several years, and with interest rates so low they don't provide much income. So what does this mean to you? I'm going make some assumptions here based on your post. You said single index, self-managed, and don't lower overall risk (and return). I'm going to assume you're a small investor, young, you invest in ETFs, and the single index is the S&P 500 index ETF -- SPY. S&P 500 is, roughly, the 500 biggest companies in the USA. Further, it's weighted -- how much of each stock is in the index -- such that the bigger the company is, the bigger a percentage of the index it is. If slickcharts is right, the top 5 companies combined are already 11% of the index! (Apple, Microsoft, Exxon, Amazon, and Johnson & Johnson). The smallest, News Corp, is a measly 0.008% of the index. In other words, if all you're invested in is SPY, you're invested in a handfull of giant american companies, and a little bit of other stuff besides. To diversify: Company risk and sector risk aren't really relevant to you, since you want broad market ETFs; they've already got that covered. The first thing I would do is add some smaller companies -- get some ETFs for mid cap, and small cap value (not small cap growth; it sucks for structural reasons). Examples are IWR for mid-cap and VBR for small-cap value. After you've done that, and are comfortable with what you have, it may be time to branch out internationally. You can get ETFs for regions (such as the EU - check out IEV), or countries (like Japan - see EWJ). But you'd probably want to start with one that's \"\"all major countries that aren't the USA\"\" - check out EFA. In any case, don't go too crazy with it. As index investing goes, the S&P 500 is not a bad way to go. Feed in anything else a little bit at a time, and take the time to really understand what it is you're investing in. So for example, using the ETFs I mentioned, add in 10% each IWR and VBR. Then after you're comfortable, maybe add 10% EFA, and raise IWR to 20%. What the ultimate percentages are, of course, is something you have to decide for yourself. Or, you could just chuck it all and buy a single Target Date Retirement fund from, say, Vanguard or T. Rowe Price and just not worry about it.\"" }, { "docid": "241423", "title": "", "text": "\"See Solid reading/literature for investment/retirement/income taxes? – not exactly the same question, but a great reading list for you. You are putting the cart before the horse here, first, you learn, then you invest. There's a large danger in confusing intelligent investing with \"\"fooling around\"\". The idea that you think you'd like to use derivatives without knowing how or why is a tough one. I suggest you go to Yahoo! Finance and set yourself up with a portfolio (click on the \"\"My Portfolios\"\" tab), in effect, creating your own simulated account. Assume you are starting with some reasonable amount of money, say $10,000, but not $1M, as part of real investing is to learn how to asset allocate the funds you have. Learning that way for a time is the smarter way to start. That said, individual stocks are not for everyone. Most investors can lead a successful investing life by using ETFs or mutual funds of one type or another. Learning to pick individual stocks can be a life's work, and if you put too little time into it, are likely to be disappointed. But learning by 'paper trading' can be a good learning experience nonetheless.\"" }, { "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": "322725", "title": "", "text": "In the past 10 years there have been mutual funds that would act as a single bucket of stocks and bonds. A good example is Fidelity's Four In One. The trade off was a management fee for the fund in exchange for having to manage the portfolio itself and pay separate commissions and fees. These days though it is very simple and pretty cheap to put together a basket of 5-6 ETFs that would represent a balanced portfolio. Whats even more interesting is that large online brokerage houses are starting to offer commission free trading of a number of ETFs, as long as they are not day traded and are held for a period similar to NTF mutual funds. I think you could easily put together a basket of 5-6 ETFs to trade on Fidelity or TD Ameritrade commission free, and one that would represent a nice diversified portfolio. The main advantage is that you are not giving money to the fund manager but rather paying the minimal cost of investing in an index ETF. Overall this can save you an extra .5-1% annually on your portfolio, just in fees. Here are links to commission free ETF trading on Fidelity and TD Ameritrade." }, { "docid": "481401", "title": "", "text": "Personal finance is a fairly broad area. Which part might you be starting with? From the very basics, make sure you understand your current cashflow: are you bank balances going up or down? Next, make a budget. There's plenty of information to get started here, and it doesn't require a fancy piece of software. This will make sure you have a deeper understanding of where your money is going, and what is it being saved for. Is it just piling up, or is it allocated for specific purchases (i.e. that new car, house, college tuition, retirement, or even a vacation or a rainy day)? As part of the budgeting/cashflow exercise, make sure you have any outstanding debts covered. Are your credit card balances under control? Do you have other outstanding loans (education, auto, mortgage, other)? Normally, you'd address these in order from highest to lowest interest rate. Your budget should address any immediate mandatory expenses (rent, utilities, food) and long term existing debts. Then comes discretionary spending and savings (especially until you have a decent emergency fund). How much can you afford to spend on discretionary purchases? How much do you want to be able to spend? If the want is greater than the can, what steps can you take to rememdy that? With savings you can have a whole new set of planning to consider. How much do you leave in the bank? Do you keep some amount in a CD ladder? How much goes into retirement savings accounts (401k, Roth vs. Traditional IRA), college savings accounts, or a plain brokerage account? How do you balance your overall portfolio (there is a wealth of information on portfolio management)? What level of risk are you comfortable with? What level of risk should you consider, given your age and goals? How involved do you want to be with your portfolio, or do you want someone else to manage it? Silver Dragon's answer contains some good starting points for portfolio management and investing. Definitely spend some time learning the basics of investing and portfolio management even if you decide to solicit professional expertise; understanding what they're doing can help to determine earlier whether your interests are being treated as a priority." }, { "docid": "213435", "title": "", "text": "\"The power of compounding interest and returns is an amazing thing. Start educating yourself about investing, and do it -- there are great Q&As on this site, numerous books (I recommend \"\"The Intelligent Investor\"\", tools for small investors (like Sharebuilder.com) and other resources out there to get you started. Your portfolio doesn't need to include every dime you have either. But you do need to develop the discipline to save money -- even if that savings is $20 while you're in school. How you split between cash/deposit account savings and other investment vehicles is a decision that needs to make sense to you.\"" }, { "docid": "176335", "title": "", "text": "\"You will invest 1000£ each month and the transaction fee is 10£ per trade, so buying a bunch of stocks each month would not be wise. If you buy 5 stocks, then transaction costs will eat up 5% of your investment. So if you insist on taking this approach, you should probably only buy one or two stocks a month. It sounds like you're interested in active investing & would like a diversified portfolio, so maybe the best approach for you is Core & Satellite Portfolio Management. Start by creating a well diversified portfolio \"\"core\"\" with index funds. Once you have a solid core, make some active investment decisions with the \"\"satellite\"\" portion of the portfolio. You can dollar cost average into the core and make active bets when the opportunity arises, so you're not killed by transaction fees.\"" }, { "docid": "129255", "title": "", "text": "Investing is really about learning your own comfort level. You will make money and lose money. You will make mistakes but you will also learn a great deal. First off, invest in your own financial knowledge, this doesn't require capital at all but a commitment. No one will watch or care for your own money better than yourself. Read books, and follow some companies in a Google Finance virtual portfolio. Track how they're doing over time - you can do this as a virtual portfolio without actually spending or losing money. Have you ever invested before? What is your knowledge level? Investing long term is about trying to balance risk while reducing losses and trying not to get screwed along the way (by people). My personal advice: Go to an independent financial planner, go to one that charges you per hour only. Financial planners that don't charge you hourly get paid in commissions. They will be biased to sell you what puts the most money in their pockets. Do not go to the banks investment people, they are employed by the banks who have sales and quota requirements to have you invest and push their own investment vehicles like mutual funds. Take $15k to the financial planner and see what they suggest. Keep the other $5K in something slow and boring and $1k under your mattress in actual cash as an emergency. While you're young, compound interest is the magic that will make that $25k increase hand over fist in time. But you need to have it consistently make money. I'm young too and more risk tolerant because I have time. While I get older I can start to scale back my risk because I'm nearing retirement and preserve instead of try to make returns." } ]

[ { "docid": "158520", "title": "", "text": "There are different perspectives from which to calculate the gain, but the way I think it should be done is with respect to the risk you've assumed in the original position, which the simplistic calculation doesn't factor in. There's a good explanation about calculating the return from a short sale at Investopedia. Here's the part that I consider most relevant: [...] When calculating the return of a short sale, you need to compare the amount the trader gets to keep to the initial amount of the liability. Had the trade in our example turned against you, you (as the short seller) would owe not only the initial proceeds amount but also the excess amount, and this would come out of your pocket. [...] Refer to the source link for the full explanation. Update: As you can see from the other answers and comments, it is a more complex a Q&A than it may first appear. I subsequently found this interesting paper which discusses the difficulty of rate of return with respect to short sales and other atypical trades: Excerpt: [...] The problem causing this almost uniform omission of a percentage return on short sales, options (especially writing), and futures, it may be speculated, is that the nigh-well universal and conventional definition of rate of return involving an initial cash outflow followed by a later cash inflow does not appear to fit these investment situations. None of the investment finance texts nor general finance texts, undergraduate or graduate, have formally or explicitly shown how to resolve this predicament or how to justify the calculations they actually use. [...]" } ]

[ { "docid": "580852", "title": "", "text": "Does it add to their lending reserves or is it utilized in other ways? It depends on how the economy and the bank in particular are doing. To simplify things greatly, banks get deposits and lend (or otherwise invest) the majority of those deposits. They must keep some percentage in reserve in case depositors want to make withdrawals, and if they get a high percentage of withdrawals (pushing them to be undercapitalized) then they may sell their loans to other banks. Whether they lend the money to someone else or use the money for something else will depend completely on how many reserves they have from depositors and whether they have people lined up to take profitable loans from them. I wrote this answer for the benefit of CQM, I'd vote to close this question if I had 49 more reputation points, since it's not really about personal finance." }, { "docid": "163446", "title": "", "text": "Metals and Mining is an interesting special case for stocks. It's relationship to U.S. equity (SPX) is particularly weak (~0.3 correlation) compared to most stocks so it doesn't behave like equity. However, it is still stock and not a commodities index so it's relation to major metals (Gold for instance) is not that strong either (-0.6 correlation). Metals and Mining stocks have certainly underperformed the stock market in general over the past 25years 3% vs 9.8% (annualized) so this doesn't look particularly promising. It did have a spectacularly good 8 year period ('99-'07) though 66% (annualized). It's worth remembering that it is still stock. If the market did not think it could make a reasonable profit on the stock the price would decrease until the market thought it could make the same profit as other equity (adjusted slightly for the risk). So is it reasonable to expect that it would give the same return as other stock on average? Yes.. -ish. Though as has been shown in the past 25 years your actual result could vary wildly both positive and negative. (All numbers are from monthly over the last 25 years using VGPMX as a M&M proxy)" }, { "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": "581514", "title": "", "text": "In this type of strategy profit is made when the shares go down as your main position is the short trade of the common stock. The convertible instruments will tend to move in about the same direction as the underlying (what it can be converted to) but less violently as they are traded less (lower volatility and lower volume in the market on both sides), however, they are not being used to make a profit so much as to hedge against the stock going up. Since both the bonds and the preference shares are higher on the list to be repaid if the company declares bankruptcy and the bonds pay out a fixed amount of interest as well, both also help protect against problems that may occur with a long position in the common stock. Essentially the plan with this strategy is to earn fixed income on the bonds whilst the stock price drops and then to sell both the bonds and buy the stock back on the market to cover the short position. If the prediction that the stock will fall is wrong then you are still earning fixed income on the debt and are able to convert it into stock at the higher price to cover the short sale eliminating, or reducing, the loss made on the short sale. Effectively the profit here is made on the spread between the price of the bond, accounting for the conversion price, and the price of the stock and that fixed income is less volatile (except usually in the junk market) than stock." }, { "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": "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": "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": "107123", "title": "", "text": "tl;dr- libor plus a small (<50bps) spread for S&P500 exposure. larger spread for less liquid/ more esoteric index. a swap is basically just outsourcing balance sheet to a dealer bank. the counterparty (dealer) is shorting you (the fund) the return of the index. to hedge their short, the dealer would borrow funds and buy the stocks in the index. large dealer banks can borrow at basically libor. they'll also expect compensation for the transaction costs of buying the hedge plus a profit on the (small amount) of capital they need to finance this transaction. this will vary based on the size of the portfolio. s&p500 costs maybe 5bps in transaction cost. an EM index costs maybe 50bps. so it will depend on the index. profit to the dealer depends on supply/demand dynamics. sometimes this transaction will be in demand, sometimes the short side will be more valuable. so it depends on the index you're talking about as well as market dynamics. right now for s&p500 exposure, not more than libor plus 50 for a mid-sized fund." }, { "docid": "129540", "title": "", "text": "\"The first rule I follow is pretty simple: Get paid for what you do. Earn a return on what you own. If you are running your company prudently, you should earn a salary for the position and responsibilities you hold within the business. This salary should be competitive. You should be able to replace yourself in the business at this salary. If your title is \"\"President\"\" or \"\"CEO\"\" - look for market rate salaries for others in that position within your industry and company size. If you wear multiple hats in a small business, you will likely have to blend this salary based on those various positions. Based on how you run your business, the money left over at the end of the year after you and your team takes a competitive wage is your profit. If there isn't any profit, then you might want to do some work on your business model. But if their is a profit, then it's a clear return on what you own and not just a payment for work completed. The idea would be that you could exit the business as an operator, pay someone else to do exactly what you do, and you would continue to get that profit return at the end of the year. This is when a business acts like a true asset. Whether you take your money in salary or profit distributions (or dividends) depending on your structure, taxes are about the same. W2'd salaries get normal employee contributed taxes, but then of course the company matches these. It is identical if you take a guaranteed payment or distribution that gets hit with self employment taxes. Profits are also going to get hit with the same taxes. Follow ups: 1) A fair salary would be a competitive market wage for the position you hold within the business. What is left over would be considered true profits and not just fabricated profits by taking a lower than market wage to boost the appearance of profitability. 2) Shareholders requesting salary information would be covered in your Operating Agreement or Shareholder Agreement. This might be terms you set with your investors. Or you might simply set a term that you only need approval if a single salary exceeds a cap (like $250,000). Which would mean you would need to present why you deserve a higher salary and have your board approve (if you are governed by said board via your investors). Profitability is a different ballpark. Your investors most likely have a right to see a monthly, quarterly, and/or annual Profit & Loss statement which should clearly state profitability. I can't imagine running a completely closed book company to my investors. Actually... I can't really imagine ever investing in a company where I am not permitted to see the financials. Something to also consider here is the threat of trying to keep your profit numbers low in order to not pay taxes or to pay yourself a higher salary. If you ever plan to sell or exit the company, most widely accepted valuations of a business are done from profits (or EBIDTA). You might think you are saving yourself a couple points on taxes by avoiding profits in the short term, but if you exit the business and get a 3-5X (or even up to 12X in some cases) multiplier on your annual profits, you might be kicking yourself for trying to hide them through your accounting practices. Buyers will often sniff out an owner who created false profits by not paying themselves, but what's harder to do is figure out how much profits should have been when there were none on the books. By saving yourself $100,000 in taxes this year, could add up to close to $1,000,000 in an acquisition. Good luck.\"" }, { "docid": "45190", "title": "", "text": "\"A mutual fund could make two different kinds of distributions to you: Capital gains: When the fund liquidates positions that it holds, it may realize a gain if it sells the assets for a greater price than the fund purchased them for. As an example, for an index fund, assets may get liquidated if the underlying index changes in composition, thus requiring the manager to sell some stocks and purchase others. Mutual funds are required to distribute most of their income that they generate in this way back to its shareholders; many often do this near the end of the calendar year. When you receive the distribution, the gains will be categorized as either short-term (the asset was held for less than one year) or long-term (vice versa). Based upon the holding period, the gain is taxed differently. Currently in the United States, long-term capital gains are only taxed at 15%, regardless of your income tax bracket (you only pay the capital gains tax, not the income tax). Short-term capital gains are treated as ordinary income, so you will pay your (probably higher) tax rate on any cash that you are given by your mutual fund. You may also be subject to capital gains taxes when you decide to sell your holdings in the fund. Any profit that you made based on the difference between your purchase and sale price is treated as a capital gain. Based upon the period of time that you held the mutual fund shares, it is categorized as a short- or long-term gain and is taxed accordingly in the tax year that you sell the shares. Dividends: Many companies pay dividends to their stockholders as a way of returning a portion of their profits to their collective owners. When you invest in a mutual fund that owns dividend-paying stocks, the fund is the \"\"owner\"\" that receives the dividend payments. As with capital gains, mutual funds will redistribute these dividends to you periodically, often quarterly or annually. The main difference with dividends is that they are always taxed as ordinary income, no matter how long you (or the fund) have held the asset. I'm not aware of Texas state tax laws, so I can't comment on your other question.\"" }, { "docid": "500986", "title": "", "text": "\"This is always a judgement call based on your own tolerance for risk. Yes, you have a fairly long time horizon and that does mean you can accept more risk/more volatility than someone closer to starting to draw upon those savings, but you're old enough and have enough existing savings that you want to start thinking about reducing the risk a notch. So most folks in your position would not put 100% in stocks, though exactly how much should be moved to bonds is debatable. One traditional rule of thumb for a moderately conservative position is to subtract your age from 100 and keep that percentage of your investments in stock. Websearch for \"\"stock bond age\"\" will find lots of debate about whether and how to modify this rule. I have gone more aggressive myself, and haven't demonstrably hurt myself, but \"\"past results are no guarantee of future performance\"\". A paid financial planning advisor can interview you about your risk tolerance, run some computer models, and recommend a strategy, with some estimate of expected performance and volatility. If you are looking for a semi-rational approach, that may be worth considering, at least as a starting point.\"" }, { "docid": "154665", "title": "", "text": "Opened Long - is when you open a long position. Long means that you buy to open the position, so you are trying to profit as the price rises. So if you were closing a long position you would sell it. Closed Short - is when you close out a short position. Short means that you sell to open and buy back to close. With a short position you are trying to profit as the price falls. Scaled Out - means you get out of a position in increments as the price climbs (for long positions). Scaled In - means you set a target price and then invest in increments as the stock falls below that price (for long positions)." }, { "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": "88575", "title": "", "text": "\"A mutual fund's return or yield has nothing to do with what you receive from the mutual fund. The annual percentage return is simply the percentage increase (or decrease!) of the value of one share of the mutual fund from January 1 till December 31. The cash value of any distributions (dividend income, short-term capital gains, long-term capital gains) might be reported separately or might be included in the annual return. What you receive from the mutual fund is the distributions which you have the option of taking in cash (and spending on whatever you like, or investing elsewhere) or of re-investing into the fund without ever actually touching the money. Regardless of whether you take a distribution as cash or re-invest it in the mutual fund, that amount is taxable income in most jurisdictions. In the US, long-term capital gains are taxed at different (lower) rates than ordinary income, and I believe that long-term capital gains from mutual funds are not taxed at all in India. You are not taxed on the increase in the value of your investment caused by an increase in the share price over the year nor do you get deduct the \"\"loss\"\" if the share price declined over the year. It is only when you sell the mutual fund shares (back to the mutual fund company) that you have to pay taxes on the capital gains (if you sold for a higher price) or deduct the capital loss (if you sold for a lower price) than the purchase price of the shares. Be aware that different shares in the sale might have different purchase prices because they were bought at different times, and thus have different gains and losses. So, how do you calculate your personal return from the mutual fund investment? If you have a money management program or a spreadsheet program, it can calculate your return for you. If you have online access to your mutual fund account on its website, it will most likely have a tool called something like \"\"Personal rate of return\"\" and this will provide you with the same calculations without your having to type in all the data by hand. Finally, If you want to do it personally by hand, I am sure that someone will soon post an answer writing out the gory details.\"" }, { "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": "194898", "title": "", "text": "When you add points, a break-even date comes into play. That date varies depending on the rate and number of points. As an approximate example, having one point at those rates would have a break-even point of about 5 years. At that time, the amount you save with the lower rate makes up for the extra cash you paid for points. After that, you are saving money. If you don't plan on having the loan that long, the points are not worth it. Also, you need to calculate the break-even date based on your own parameters. I suggest searching for an online calculator or spreadsheet that supports point calculations. You may also be able to deduct 1/30th of your points every year. Ask you accountant about that." }, { "docid": "356873", "title": "", "text": "\"First of all, the only thing they can do to force you to pay is sue you. If they don't sue you, then they can't force you to do anything. All they have right now is just a written agreement you signed promising to pay. That by itself doesn't have legal power to take money from you. The worst they can do without suing you is put negative information on your credit report (which has probably already happened anyway). If they sue you within the \"\"statute of limitations\"\", they will almost certainly win and get a judgment against you, because you did agree to pay. With that judgment, the court can force you to reveal your income and asset information, and they can take the judgment to do things like seize money from your bank accounts and/or garnish your wages. And the judgment does not go away. However, if you have no money in the bank and/or income, they can't take any money from you, because you have none. They can't take more from you than you have. In other words, if you have no money or income, and won't have money or income soon, the judgment they can get by suing you and winning isn't worth the paper it's on. Since serving you and suing you takes money and effort, they will make a calculation on whether it is worth suing you based on the amount of debt and what amount of money they think they can get from you based on what they know about you. This is the reason why you may not be sued at all (if they calculate that it is not worth it), and also why they may offer you a settlement for a lesser amount (because is saves the cost of suing and the risk that they won't be able to get you to pay). The amount you mentioned (several thousand dollars) may be small enough for it to be not worth it. Another thing is the statute of limitations I mentioned earlier, which varies by state and is several years long. If they sue you after the statute of limitations passes, then you can raise the statute of limitations and get the lawsuit dismissed. So basically, after this amount of time passes, you are pretty much free from this debt. Note that the statute of limitations \"\"resets\"\" if you acknowledge the debt, which includes paying any amount on the debt or agreeing that you owe them this debt. So if the collection agency ever offers you benefits if you just sign a promissory note, or just pay a token amount, don't fall for the trap -- they are trying to reset the statute of limitations. Even though it's true that you owe them the debt, never let them hear you acknowledging it, unless it's part of a final settlement. Finally, if they get a judgment against you and you don't want them to have the ability to take your money indefinitely in the future until the debt is satisfied, there may be the option of bankruptcy. However, a few thousand dollars may not be worth the cost and negative consequences of bankruptcy, since as a young man you should be able to earn that amount quickly whenever you start working.\"" }, { "docid": "405206", "title": "", "text": "Michael gave a good answer describing the transaction but I wanted to follow up on your questions about the lender. First, the lender does charge interest on the borrowed securities. The amount of interest can vary based on a number of factors, such as who is borrowing, how much are they borrowing, and what stock are they trying to borrow. Occasionally when you are trying to short a stock you will get an error that it is hard to borrow. This could be for a few reasons, such as there are already a large amount of people who have shorted your broker's shares, or your broker never acquired the shares to begin with (which usually only happens on very small stocks). In both cases the broker/lender doesnt have enough shares and may be unwilling to get more. In that way they are discriminating on what they lend. If a company is about to go bankrupt and a lender doesnt have any more shares to lend out, it is unlikely they will purchase more as they stand to lose a lot and gain very little. It might seem like lending is a risky business but think of it as occurring over decades and not months. General Motors had been around for 100 years before it went bankrupt, so any lender who had owned and been lending out GM shares for a fraction of that time likely still profited. Also this is all very simplified. JoeTaxpayer alluded to this in the comments but in actuality who is lending stock or even who owns stock is much more complicated and probably doesnt need to be explained here. I just wanted to show in this over-simplified explanation that lending is not as risky as it may first seem." }, { "docid": "278984", "title": "", "text": "There could be a number of reasons: The price hit your number ($39.70) but by the time your order hit the market, the price had gone up. Perhaps the stock went up between when you placed the stop loss and when the order was executed. A trailing stop loss will ratchet up: Very simply, the trailing stop maintains a stop-loss order at a precise percentage below the market price (or above, in the case of a short position). The stop-loss order is adjusted continually based on fluctuations in the market price, always maintaining the same percentage below (or above) the market price." } ]

[ { "docid": "207325", "title": "", "text": "Simple math: 50-25=25, hence decline from 50 to 25 is a 50% decline (you lose half), while an advance from 25 to 50 is 100% gain (you gain 100%, double your 25 to 50). Their point is that if you have more upswings than downswings - you'll gain more on long positions during upswings than on short positions during downswings on average. Again - simple math." } ]

[ { "docid": "581514", "title": "", "text": "In this type of strategy profit is made when the shares go down as your main position is the short trade of the common stock. The convertible instruments will tend to move in about the same direction as the underlying (what it can be converted to) but less violently as they are traded less (lower volatility and lower volume in the market on both sides), however, they are not being used to make a profit so much as to hedge against the stock going up. Since both the bonds and the preference shares are higher on the list to be repaid if the company declares bankruptcy and the bonds pay out a fixed amount of interest as well, both also help protect against problems that may occur with a long position in the common stock. Essentially the plan with this strategy is to earn fixed income on the bonds whilst the stock price drops and then to sell both the bonds and buy the stock back on the market to cover the short position. If the prediction that the stock will fall is wrong then you are still earning fixed income on the debt and are able to convert it into stock at the higher price to cover the short sale eliminating, or reducing, the loss made on the short sale. Effectively the profit here is made on the spread between the price of the bond, accounting for the conversion price, and the price of the stock and that fixed income is less volatile (except usually in the junk market) than stock." }, { "docid": "107123", "title": "", "text": "tl;dr- libor plus a small (<50bps) spread for S&P500 exposure. larger spread for less liquid/ more esoteric index. a swap is basically just outsourcing balance sheet to a dealer bank. the counterparty (dealer) is shorting you (the fund) the return of the index. to hedge their short, the dealer would borrow funds and buy the stocks in the index. large dealer banks can borrow at basically libor. they'll also expect compensation for the transaction costs of buying the hedge plus a profit on the (small amount) of capital they need to finance this transaction. this will vary based on the size of the portfolio. s&p500 costs maybe 5bps in transaction cost. an EM index costs maybe 50bps. so it will depend on the index. profit to the dealer depends on supply/demand dynamics. sometimes this transaction will be in demand, sometimes the short side will be more valuable. so it depends on the index you're talking about as well as market dynamics. right now for s&p500 exposure, not more than libor plus 50 for a mid-sized fund." }, { "docid": "252843", "title": "", "text": "FICA taxes are separate from federal and state income taxes. As a sole proprietor you owe all of those. Additionally, there is a difference with FICA when you are employed vs. self employed. Typically FICA taxes are actually split between the employer and the employee, so you pay half, they pay half. But when you're self employed, you pay both halves. This is what is commonly referred to as the self employment tax. If you are both employed and self employed as I am, your employer pays their portion of FICA on the income you earn there, and you pay both halves on the income you earn in your business. Edit: As @JoeTaxpayer added in his comment, you can specify an extra amount to be withheld from your pay when you fill out your W-4 form. This is separate from the calculation of how much to withhold based on dependents and such; see line 6 on the linked form. This could allow you to avoid making quarterly estimated payments for your self-employment income. I think this is much easier when your side income is predictable. Personally, I find it easier to come up with a percentage I must keep aside from my side income (for me this is about 35%), and then I immediately set that aside when I get paid. I make my quarterly estimated payments out of that money set aside. My side income can vary quite a bit though; if I could predict it better I would probably do the extra withholding. Yes, you need to pay taxes for FICA and federal income tax. I can't say exactly how much you should withhold though. If you have predictable deductions and such, it could be lower than you expect. I'm not a tax professional, and when it comes doing business taxes I go to someone who is. You don't have to do that, but I'm not comfortable offering any detailed advice on how you should proceed there. I mentioned what I do personally as an illustration of how I handle withholding, but I can't say that that's what someone else should do." }, { "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": "586984", "title": "", "text": "Similar premise, yes. It's an investment so you're definitely hoping it grows so you can sell it for a profit/gain. Public (stock market) vs. private (shark tank) are a little different though in terms of how much money you get and the form of income. With stocks, if you buy X number of shares at a certain price, you definitely want to sell them when they are worth more. However, you don't get, say 0.001% (or whatever percentage you own, it would be trivial) of the profits. They just pay a dividend to you based on a pre-determined amount and multiply it by the number of shares you own and that would be your income. Unless you're like Warren Buffet and Berkshire who can buy significant stakes of companies through the stock market, then they can likely put the investment on the balance sheet of his company, but that's a different discussion. It would also be expensive as hell to do that. With shark tank investors, the main benefit they get is significant ownership of a company for a cheap price, however the risk can be greater too as these companies don't have a strong foundation of sales and are just beginning. Investing in Apple vs. a small business is pretty significant difference haha. These companies are so small and in such a weak financial position which is why they're seeking money to grow, so they have almost no leverage. Mark Cuban could swoop in and offer $50k for 25% and that's almost worth it relative to what $50k in Apple shares would get him. It's all about the return. Apple and other big public companies are mature and most of the growth has already happened so there is little upside. With these startups, if they ever take off then and you own 25% of the company, it can be worth billions." }, { "docid": "278984", "title": "", "text": "There could be a number of reasons: The price hit your number ($39.70) but by the time your order hit the market, the price had gone up. Perhaps the stock went up between when you placed the stop loss and when the order was executed. A trailing stop loss will ratchet up: Very simply, the trailing stop maintains a stop-loss order at a precise percentage below the market price (or above, in the case of a short position). The stop-loss order is adjusted continually based on fluctuations in the market price, always maintaining the same percentage below (or above) the market price." }, { "docid": "163446", "title": "", "text": "Metals and Mining is an interesting special case for stocks. It's relationship to U.S. equity (SPX) is particularly weak (~0.3 correlation) compared to most stocks so it doesn't behave like equity. However, it is still stock and not a commodities index so it's relation to major metals (Gold for instance) is not that strong either (-0.6 correlation). Metals and Mining stocks have certainly underperformed the stock market in general over the past 25years 3% vs 9.8% (annualized) so this doesn't look particularly promising. It did have a spectacularly good 8 year period ('99-'07) though 66% (annualized). It's worth remembering that it is still stock. If the market did not think it could make a reasonable profit on the stock the price would decrease until the market thought it could make the same profit as other equity (adjusted slightly for the risk). So is it reasonable to expect that it would give the same return as other stock on average? Yes.. -ish. Though as has been shown in the past 25 years your actual result could vary wildly both positive and negative. (All numbers are from monthly over the last 25 years using VGPMX as a M&M proxy)" }, { "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": "226984", "title": "", "text": "\"The settlement date for any trade is the date on which the seller gets the buyer's money and the buyer gets the seller's product. In US equities markets the settlement date is (almost universally) three trading days after the trade date. This settlement period gives the exchanges, the clearing houses, and the brokers time to figure out how many shares and how many dollars need to actually be moved around in order to give everyone what they're owed (and then to actually do all that moving around). So, \"\"settling\"\" a short trade is the same thing as settling any other trade. It has nothing to do with \"\"closing\"\" (or covering) the seller's short position. Q: Is this referring to when a short is initiated, or closed? A: Initiated. If you initiate a short position by selling borrowed shares on day 1, then settlement occurs on day 4. (Regardless of whether your short position is still open or has been closed.) Q: All open shorts which are still open by the settlement date have to be reported by the due date. A: Not exactly. The requirement is that all short positions evaluated based on their settlement dates (rather than their trade dates) still open on the deadline have to be reported by the due date. You sell short 100 AAPL on day 1. You then cover that short by buying 100 AAPL on day 2. As far as the clearing houses and brokers are concerned, however, you don't even get into the short position until your sell settles at the end of day 4, and you finally get out of your short position (in their eyes) when your buy settles at the end of day 5. So imagine the following scenarios: The NASDAQ deadline happens to be the end of day 2. Since your (FINRA member) broker has been told to report based on settlement date, it would report no open position for you in AAPL even though you executed a trade to sell on day 1. The NASDAQ deadline happens to be the end of day 3. Your sell still has not settled, so there's still no open position to report for you. The NASDAQ deadline happens to be the end of day 4. Your sell has settled but your buy has not, so the broker reports a 100 share open short position for you. The NASDAQ deadline happens to be the end of day 5. Your sell and buy have both settled, so the broker once again has no open position to report for you. So, the point is that when dealing with settlement dates you just pretend the world is 3 days behind where it actually is.\"" }, { "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": "329662", "title": "", "text": "\"As the other answer said, the person who owns the lent stock does not benefit directly. They may benefit indirectly in that brokers can use the short lending profits to reduce their fees or in that they have the option to short other stocks at the same terms. Follow-up question: what prevents the broker lending the shares for a very short time (less than a day), pocketing the interest and returning the lenders their shares without much change in share price (because borrowing period was very short). What prevents them from doing that many times a day ? Lack of market. Short selling for short periods of time isn't so common as to allow for \"\"many\"\" times a day. Some day traders may do it occasionally, but I don't know that it would be a reliable business model to supply them. If there are enough people interested in shorting the stock, they will probably want to hold onto it long enough for the anticipated movement to happen. There are transaction costs here. Both fees for trading at all and the extra charges for short sale borrowing and interest. Most stocks do not move down by large enough amounts \"\"many\"\" times a day. Their fluctuations are smaller. If the stock doesn't move enough to cover the transaction fees, then that seller lost money overall. Over time, sellers like that will stop trading, as they will lose all their money. All that said, there are no legal blocks to loaning the stock out many times, just practical ones. If a stock was varying wildly for some bizarre reason, it could happen.\"" }, { "docid": "12940", "title": "", "text": "This is a frequent problem for anyone with a large amount of deductions, whether it is student loan interest, home mortgage interest, charitable contributions, or anything else. As an employee getting your tax withheld from your check, your options to reduce the amount withheld are limited. The HR department has no control over how much they withhold; the amount is calculated using a standard formula based on the number of exemptions you tell them. The number of exemptions you claim on your W-4 form does not have to match reality. If you currently have 1 exemption claimed, ask them what the withholding would be if you claimed 4 exemptions. If that's not enough, go higher. As long as you are not withholding so little that you have a large tax bill at the end of the year, you are fine. Of course, when you do your taxes, you need to have the correct number of exemptions claimed on your 1040, but this number does not need to match your W-4." }, { "docid": "340791", "title": "", "text": "\"It appears that the company in question is raising money to invest in expanding its operations (specifically lithium production but that is off topic for here). The stock price was rising on the back of (perceived) increases in demand for the company's products but in order to fulfil demand they need to either invest in higher production or increase prices. They chose to increase production by investing. To invest they needed to raise capital and so are going through the motions to do that. The key question as to what will happen with their stock price after this is broken down into two parts: short term and long term: In the short term the price is driven by the expectation of future profits (see below) and the behavioural expectations from an increase in interest in the stock caused by the fact that it is in the news. People who had never heard of the stock or thought of investing in the company have suddenly discovered it and been told that it is doing well and so \"\"want a piece of it\"\". This will exacerbate the effect of the news (broadly positive or negative) and will drive the price in the short run. The effect of extra leverage (assuming that they raise capital by writing bonds) also immediately increases the total value of the company so will increase the price somewhat. The short term price changes usually pare back after a few months as the shine goes off and people take profits. For investing in the long run you need to consider how the increase in capital will be used and how demand and supply will change. Since the company is using the money to invest in factors of production (i.e. making more product) it is the return on capital (or investment) employed (ROCE) that will inform the fundamentals underlying the stock price. The higher the ROCE, the more valuable the capital raised is in the future and the more profits and the company as a whole will grow. A questing to ask yourself is whether they can employ the extra capital at the same ROCE as they currently produce. It is possible that by investing in new, more productive equipment they can raise their ROCE but also possible that, because the lithium mines (or whatever) can only get so big and can only get so much access to the seams extra capital will not be as productive as existing capital so ROCE will fall for the new capital.\"" }, { "docid": "358586", "title": "", "text": "\"I saw that an answer hasn't been accepted for this yet: Being bearish is a good hedging strategy. But being hedged is a better hedging strategy. The point being that not everything in investments is so binary (up, and down). A lot of effective hedges can have many more variables than simply \"\"stock go up, stock go down\"\" As such, there are many ways to be bearish and profit from a decline in market values without subjecting yourself to the unlimited risk of short selling. Buying puts against your long equity position is one example. Being long an ETF that is based on short positions is another example.\"" }, { "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": "366449", "title": "", "text": "\"> Sounds like you live in a fantasy land where everyone has infinite do-over lives and market forces are magic panacea. No, but way to attack a straw man. It's much easier than actually forming a rational argument. > Clean air and water is a public good No, they are not. > We shouldn't leave issues like this to crop up from short-sightedness and cognitive biases of private parties left to their own devices. Only a complete dumb fuck would paint a private/public dichotomy as short-term vs long-term. Politicians don't have any more of a long-term vision than any other person. > If the US had been run the way you want, we'd have had prevalence of leaded gasoline, paint, and lead in drinking water for decades more. And we'd have higher crime rates due to the brain damage caused by lead. Bullshit, because the government wasn't listening to the scientists telling them about the harm of lead in the first place. You're talking out of your ass. > Making all roads private and for-profit creates a profit motive in acquiring lands that are strategically important in transportation It's almost as if more resources would go towards things that are more widely used. > opening up opportunities for monopolies and collusion Oh look, more talking out of your ass, complete with the \"\"answer to no one\"\" nonsense that only exists in the fantasy world in which consumers consistently harm themselves and no legal framework exists to stop unlawful behavior. It's fucking retarded. You have neither evidence nor even economic reasoning to support this. > Law and law enforcement is a matter of trust. No, *your* monopolized version of law is based upon trust. It's based upon the notion that you can hold an all-powerful entity accountable for its actions by appealing to that very same entity with a vote that makes no difference on the margin. And that's not trust, it's a religion.\"" }, { "docid": "221427", "title": "", "text": "With a short position you make your money (profit) when you buy the stocks back to close the position at a lower price than what you bought them at. As short selling is classed as speculation and not investing and you at no time own any actual assets, you cannot donate any short possition to charity. If you did want to avoid paying tax on the profits you could donate the proceeds of the profits after closing the position and thus get a tax deduction equal to the profits you made. But that raises a new and more important question, why are you trading in the first place if you are afraid to make profits in case you have to pay tax on those profits?" }, { "docid": "331606", "title": "", "text": "\"When margin is calculated as the equity percentage of an account, the point at which a broker will forcibly liquidate is typically called \"\"maintenance margin\"\". In the US, this is 25% for equities. To calculate the price at which this will occur, the initial and maintenance margin must be known. The formula for a long with margin is: and for a short where P_m is the maintenance margin price, P_i is the initial margin price, m_i is the initial margin rate, and m_m is the maintenance margin rate. At an initial margin of 50% and a maintenance margin of 25%, a long equity may fall by 1/3 before forced liquidation, a short one may rise by 50%. This calculation can become very complex with different asset classes with differing maintenance margins because the margin debt is applied to all securities collectively.\"" }, { "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": "422467", "title": "", "text": "The problem with rate of return calculation on short positions is, that the commonly used approach assumes an initial investment creating a cash outflow. If we want to apply this approach to short selling, we should look at the trade from another perspective. We buy money and pay for this money with stock. Our investment to buy 50$ in your example is 1 share. When closing the short position, we effectively sell back our money (50$) and receive 2 shares. Our profit on this position is obviously 1 share. Setting this in relation to our investment of 1 share yields a performance of 100% in reality, we do not sell back the entire cash but only the amount needed to get back our investment of 1 share. This is actually comparable to a purchase of stock which we only partially close to get back our invested cash amount and keep the remaining shares as our profit" } ]

[ { "docid": "252843", "title": "", "text": "FICA taxes are separate from federal and state income taxes. As a sole proprietor you owe all of those. Additionally, there is a difference with FICA when you are employed vs. self employed. Typically FICA taxes are actually split between the employer and the employee, so you pay half, they pay half. But when you're self employed, you pay both halves. This is what is commonly referred to as the self employment tax. If you are both employed and self employed as I am, your employer pays their portion of FICA on the income you earn there, and you pay both halves on the income you earn in your business. Edit: As @JoeTaxpayer added in his comment, you can specify an extra amount to be withheld from your pay when you fill out your W-4 form. This is separate from the calculation of how much to withhold based on dependents and such; see line 6 on the linked form. This could allow you to avoid making quarterly estimated payments for your self-employment income. I think this is much easier when your side income is predictable. Personally, I find it easier to come up with a percentage I must keep aside from my side income (for me this is about 35%), and then I immediately set that aside when I get paid. I make my quarterly estimated payments out of that money set aside. My side income can vary quite a bit though; if I could predict it better I would probably do the extra withholding. Yes, you need to pay taxes for FICA and federal income tax. I can't say exactly how much you should withhold though. If you have predictable deductions and such, it could be lower than you expect. I'm not a tax professional, and when it comes doing business taxes I go to someone who is. You don't have to do that, but I'm not comfortable offering any detailed advice on how you should proceed there. I mentioned what I do personally as an illustration of how I handle withholding, but I can't say that that's what someone else should do." }, { "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": "171819", "title": "", "text": "\"There some specific circumstances when you would have a long-term gain. Option 1: If you meet all of these conditions: Then you've got a long-term gain on the stock. The premium on the option gets rolled into the capital gain on the stock and is not taxed separately. From the IRS: 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. https://www.irs.gov/publications/p550/ch04.html#en_US_2015_publink100010630 Option 2: If you didn't hold the underlying and the exercise of the call that you wrote resulted in a short position, you might also be able to get to a long-term gain by buying the underlying while keeping your short position open and then \"\"crossing\"\" them to close both positions after one year. (In other words, don't \"\"buy to cover\"\" just \"\"buy\"\" so that your account shows both a long and a short position in the same security. Your broker probably allows this, but if not you, could buy in a different account than the one with the short position.) That would get you to this rule: As a general rule, you determine whether you have short-term or long-term capital gain or loss on a short sale by the amount of time you actually hold the property eventually delivered to the lender to close the short sale. https://www.irs.gov/publications/p550/ch04.html#en_US_2015_publink100010586 Option 1 is probably reasonably common. Option 2, I would guess, is uncommon and likely not worthwhile. I do not think that the wash sale rules can help string along options from expiration to expiration though. Option 1 has some elements of what you wrote in italics (I find that paragraph a bit confusing), but the wash sale does not help you out.\"" }, { "docid": "12940", "title": "", "text": "This is a frequent problem for anyone with a large amount of deductions, whether it is student loan interest, home mortgage interest, charitable contributions, or anything else. As an employee getting your tax withheld from your check, your options to reduce the amount withheld are limited. The HR department has no control over how much they withhold; the amount is calculated using a standard formula based on the number of exemptions you tell them. The number of exemptions you claim on your W-4 form does not have to match reality. If you currently have 1 exemption claimed, ask them what the withholding would be if you claimed 4 exemptions. If that's not enough, go higher. As long as you are not withholding so little that you have a large tax bill at the end of the year, you are fine. Of course, when you do your taxes, you need to have the correct number of exemptions claimed on your 1040, but this number does not need to match your W-4." }, { "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": "476359", "title": "", "text": "\">Perhaps \"\"almost always\"\" was a bit of hyperbole, but in matters of cost vs. quality I'd expect publicly traded companies to prioritize short-term shareholder profit (or be sued by said shareholders.) Can you give me any examples of where shareholders sued the company because they weren't making much profit or focused on long term rather than short term? I can't think of any. Maybe if the company were grossly negligent in some way, but in general, no I don't think that happens, or at least I've never heard of it, and it sounds like a stupid thing for shareholders to do because they're never under any obligation for a piece of the profit either.\"" }, { "docid": "43349", "title": "", "text": "\"By that vein, air is a product you consume on a daily basis. Should someone work to monetize oxygen now? There must be a rational limit on where you draw the line of short term profit versus long term social sustainability. I'm all for seeking a profit, but any profit calculations should take into account the full cost to the society before declaring something \"\"profitable.\"\" The cost of seeking these profits is higher prices for everyone, which in turn reduces the availability of the service. This takes money out of local economies, pools resources in the hands of a small group of corporations that exist solely to sit on large piles of money \"\"just in case,\"\" and potentially denies vital care to people who may have potentially netted a huge benefit for society. All this so that someone can see a few points improvement in their portfolio. Note, this does not mean I'm against insurance as a whole. There are plenty of insurance products that I feel are perfectly valid and reasonable; car, home, corporate and so on are all valid examples of \"\"luxury\"\" products that you could technically live without. However the social cost of for profit health care and health insurance is such that I do not see how it can potentially justify the cost to society. So while sure, seeking profit on vital services may not be crazy within your limited view, it is certainly crazy to call something \"\"profit\"\" just because your analysis of the situation fails to take into account the huge net negatives of such a practice.\"" }, { "docid": "581514", "title": "", "text": "In this type of strategy profit is made when the shares go down as your main position is the short trade of the common stock. The convertible instruments will tend to move in about the same direction as the underlying (what it can be converted to) but less violently as they are traded less (lower volatility and lower volume in the market on both sides), however, they are not being used to make a profit so much as to hedge against the stock going up. Since both the bonds and the preference shares are higher on the list to be repaid if the company declares bankruptcy and the bonds pay out a fixed amount of interest as well, both also help protect against problems that may occur with a long position in the common stock. Essentially the plan with this strategy is to earn fixed income on the bonds whilst the stock price drops and then to sell both the bonds and buy the stock back on the market to cover the short position. If the prediction that the stock will fall is wrong then you are still earning fixed income on the debt and are able to convert it into stock at the higher price to cover the short sale eliminating, or reducing, the loss made on the short sale. Effectively the profit here is made on the spread between the price of the bond, accounting for the conversion price, and the price of the stock and that fixed income is less volatile (except usually in the junk market) than stock." }, { "docid": "60001", "title": "", "text": "Yes, from the point-of-view to the end speculator/investor in stocks, it is ludicrous to take on liabilities when you don't have to. That's why single-stock options are far more liquid than single-stock futures. However, if you are a farmer with a huge mortgage depending upon the chaos of agricultural markets which are extremely volatile, a different structure might appeal to you. You could long your inputs while shorting your outputs, locking in a profit. That profit is probably lower than what one could expect over the long run without hedging, but it will surely be less volatile. Here's where the advantage of futures come in for that kind of structure: the margin on the longs and shorts can offset each other, forcing the farmer to have to put up much less of one's own money to hedge. With options, this is not the case. Also, the gross margin between the inputs rarely fluctuate to an unmanageable degree, so if your shorts rise faster than your longs, you'll only have to post margin in the amount of the change in the net of the longs and shorts. This is why while options on commodities exist to satisfy speculators, futures are the most liquid." }, { "docid": "154665", "title": "", "text": "Opened Long - is when you open a long position. Long means that you buy to open the position, so you are trying to profit as the price rises. So if you were closing a long position you would sell it. Closed Short - is when you close out a short position. Short means that you sell to open and buy back to close. With a short position you are trying to profit as the price falls. Scaled Out - means you get out of a position in increments as the price climbs (for long positions). Scaled In - means you set a target price and then invest in increments as the stock falls below that price (for long positions)." }, { "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": "357103", "title": "", "text": "\"My answer is specific to the US because you mentioned the Federal Reserve, but a similar system is in place in most countries. Do interest rates increase based on what the market is doing, or do they solely increase based on what the Federal Reserve sets them at? There are actually two rates in question here; the Wikipedia article on the federal funds rate has a nice description that I'll summarize here. The interest rate that's usually referred to is the federal funds rate, and it's the rate at which banks can lend money to each other through the Federal Reserve. The nominal federal funds rate - this is a target set by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve at each meeting of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC). When you hear in the media that the Fed is changing interest rates, this is almost always what they're referring to. The actual federal funds rate - through the trading desk of the New York Federal Reserve, the FOMC conducts open market operations to enforce the federal funds rate, thus leading to the actual rate, which is the rate determined by market forces as a result of the Fed's operations. Open market operations involve buying and selling short-term securities in order to influence the rate. As an example, the current nominal federal funds rate is 0% (in economic parlance, this is known as the Zero Lower Bound (ZLB)), while the actual rate is approximately 25 basis points, or 0.25%. Why is it assumed that interest rates are going to increase when the Federal Reserve ends QE3? I don't understand why interest rates are going to increase. In the United States, quantitative easing is actually a little different from the usual open market operations the Fed conducts. Open market operations usually involve the buying and selling of short-term Treasury securities; in QE, however (especially the latest and ongoing round, QE3), the Fed has been purchasing longer-term Treasury securities and mortgage-backed securities (MBS). By purchasing MBS, the Fed is trying to reduce the overall risk of the commercial housing debt market. Furthermore, the demand created by these purchases drives up prices on the debt, which drives down interest rates in the commercial housing market. To clarify: the debt market I'm referring to is the market for mortgage-backed securities and other debt derivatives (CDO's, for instance). I'll use MBS as an example. The actual mortgages are sold to companies that securitize them by pooling them and issuing securities based on the value of the pool. This process may happen numerous times, since derivatives can be created based on the value of the MBS themselves, which in turn are based on housing debt. In other words, MBS aren't exactly the same thing as housing debt, but they're based on housing debt. It's these packaged securities the Fed is purchasing, not the mortgages themselves. Once the Fed draws down QE3, however, this demand will probably decrease. As the Fed unloads its balance sheet over several years, and demand decreases throughout the market, prices will fall and interest rates in the commercial housing market will fall. Ideally, the Fed will wait until the economy is healthy enough to absorb the unloading of these securities. Just to be clear, the interest rates that QE3 are targeting are different from the interest rates you usually hear about. It's possible for the Fed to unwind QE3, while still keeping the \"\"interest rate\"\", i.e. the federal funds rate, near zero. although this is considered unlikely. Also, the Fed can target long-term vs. short-term interest rates as well, which is once again slightly different from what I talked about above. This was the goal of the Operation Twist program in 2011 (and in the 1960's). Kirill Fuchs gave a great description of the program in this answer, but basically, the Fed purchased long-term securities and sold short-term securities, with the goal of twisting the yield curve to lower long-term interest rates relative to short-term rates. The goal is to encourage people and businesses to take on long-term debt, e.g. mortgages, capital investments, etc. My main question that I'm trying to understand is why interest rates are what they are. Is it more of an arbitrary number set by central banks or is it due to market activity? Hopefully I addressed much of this above, but I'll give a quick summary. There are many \"\"interest rates\"\" in numerous different financial markets. The rate most commonly talked about is the nominal federal funds rate that I mentioned above; although it's a target set by the Board of Governors, it's not arbitrary. There's a reason the Federal Reserve hires hundreds of research economists. No central bank arbitrarily sets the interest rate; it's determined as part of an effort to reach certain economic benchmarks for the foreseeable future, whatever those may be. In the US, current Fed policy maintains that the federal funds rate should be approximately zero until the economy surpasses the unemployment and inflation benchmarks set forth by the Evans Rule (named after Charles Evans, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, who pushed for the rule). The effective federal funds rate, as well as other rates the Fed has targeted like interest rates on commercial housing debt, long-term rates on Treasury securities, etc. are market driven. The Fed may enter the market, but the same forces of supply and demand are still at work. Although the Fed's actions are controversial, the effects of their actions are still bound by market forces, so the policies and their effects are anything but arbitrary.\"" }, { "docid": "580852", "title": "", "text": "Does it add to their lending reserves or is it utilized in other ways? It depends on how the economy and the bank in particular are doing. To simplify things greatly, banks get deposits and lend (or otherwise invest) the majority of those deposits. They must keep some percentage in reserve in case depositors want to make withdrawals, and if they get a high percentage of withdrawals (pushing them to be undercapitalized) then they may sell their loans to other banks. Whether they lend the money to someone else or use the money for something else will depend completely on how many reserves they have from depositors and whether they have people lined up to take profitable loans from them. I wrote this answer for the benefit of CQM, I'd vote to close this question if I had 49 more reputation points, since it's not really about personal finance." }, { "docid": "580542", "title": "", "text": "> Google would be forced to actually compete with companies vs. Giving everything away free. That creates employment opportunities for other startups to compete in a fair environment vs. Trying to acquire millions of users on no revenue. TL;DR Don't blame business, blame the politics that let bad business happen. Business doesn't work like that, specially for a publicly traded company. 'Free' goods or services are used as a loss leader to drive their profits in other sectors of the company. Whether it's for PR, marketing, or sales, no company drives their business at a loss. Somewhere, somehow the free things they do are driving their business towards higher profitability. Money isn't being lost on the economy by providing these things as free, it's just being used in different ways. Sure it could be used to pay for the wages of an employee at a startup which provides the same service... but if Google is providing it at or below the most efficient market price then it would be *wasting* money to have less efficient companies providing essentially the same product or service. That money could instead be used in more profitable sectors of the economy, which could in turn generate a healthier and/or faster growing economy overall. Working smarter, not harder. Secondly, startups aren't designed for profitability in the first few years of their operations. They're designed to capture users and information (or as patent holders but that's largely unrelated to my main point) that can later be acquired by larger companies who are looking to target those users. Why else would any company pay for a startup while they're operating at a loss? The revenue for startups comes much later on as they're bought out by bigger companies or they find a way to monetize their user base/generate stable sources of revenue. If your argument is that employment by start ups drives the economy at large, I have to ask, if the economy is operating less efficiently (by supporting start ups in replacing the market share currently held by much more efficiently operating large companies ~) by employing more people, how is this healthier for the economy as a whole? Supporting start ups is good but it has to be done in such a way that it doesn't hurt existing business just for the sake of making jobs. The size of a company doesn't make them bad as long as they compete fairly with everyone else in the market. ~ caveat being where large companies do not form an oligopoly (ie Comcast, TWC, etc...) which is obviously inefficient to begin with which is largely a product of bad politics rather than market forces" }, { "docid": "561377", "title": "", "text": "I don't understand the logic in the other answer, and I think it doesn't make sense, so here is my take: You pay taxes on income, not on sales price. So if you put X $ of your own money in the account and it becomes X + Y $ in the future, at the moment of liquidation, you will own taxes on the Y $. Never on the X $, as it was your own (already taxed) money to begin with. The difference between long-term and short-term gains just influences the tax rate on Y. If you donate the gain alone (the Y $) to charity, you can deduct Y from your tax base. So adding Y to your tax base and then deducting Y again obviously leaves your tax base at the old value, so you pay no extra taxes. Which seems logical, as you didn't make any money in the process. Aside from extreme cases where the deductible gain is too large a percentage from your income or negative, I don't see why this would ever be different. So you can take your original 100 $ back out and donate all gains, and be fine. Note that potential losses are seen different, as the IRA regulations are not symmetric." }, { "docid": "468473", "title": "", "text": "\"Pete and Noah addressed the math, showing how this is, in effect, converting a 30yr to a ~23yr mortgage, at a cost, plus payment about 8% higher (1 extra payment per year). No magic there. The real issue, as I see it, is whether this is the best use of the money. Keep in mind, once you pay extra principal, which in effect is exactly what this is, it's not easy to get it back. As long as you have any mortgage at all, you have the need for liquidity, enough to pay your mortgage, tax, utilities, etc, if you find yourself between jobs or to get through any short term crisis. I've seen people choose the \"\"sure thing\"\" prepayment VS the \"\"risky\"\" 401(k) deposit. Ignoring a match is passing up a 50% or 100% return in most cases. Too good to pass up. 2 points to add - I avoided the further tangent of the tax benefit of IRA/401(k) deposits. It's too long a discussion, today's rate for the money saved, vs the rate on withdrawal. Worth considering, but not part of my answer. The other discussion I avoid is Nicholas' thoughts on the long term market return of 10% vs today's ~4% mortgage rate. This has been debated elsewhere and morphs into a \"\"pre-pay vs invest\"\" question.\"" }, { "docid": "560710", "title": "", "text": "\"The New York Times offer a remarkably detailed Buy vs Rent calculator. You enter - From all of this, it advises the break-even rent, when monetarily, it's equal. I'd suggest you keep a few things in mind when using such a tool. Logic, common sense, and a Nobel prize winner named Robert Shiller all indicate that housing will follow inflation over the long term. Short term, even 20 years, the graphs will hint at something else, but the real long term, the cost of housing can't exceed inflation. The other major point I'd add is that I see you wrote \"\"We rent a nice house.\"\" Most often, people are looking to buy what they feel they can't easily rent. Whether it's the yard, room number or sizes, etc. This also leads to the purchase of too big a house. You can find that you can afford the extra bedroom, family room in addition to living room, etc, and then buy a house 50% bigger than what you need or planned on. In my opinion, getting the smallest house you can imagine living in, no bigger than what you live in now, and plan to get on a faster than 30 year repayment. Even with transaction costs, in 10 years, you'll have saved enough to make the bump up to a larger house if you wish.\"" }, { "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": "129540", "title": "", "text": "\"The first rule I follow is pretty simple: Get paid for what you do. Earn a return on what you own. If you are running your company prudently, you should earn a salary for the position and responsibilities you hold within the business. This salary should be competitive. You should be able to replace yourself in the business at this salary. If your title is \"\"President\"\" or \"\"CEO\"\" - look for market rate salaries for others in that position within your industry and company size. If you wear multiple hats in a small business, you will likely have to blend this salary based on those various positions. Based on how you run your business, the money left over at the end of the year after you and your team takes a competitive wage is your profit. If there isn't any profit, then you might want to do some work on your business model. But if their is a profit, then it's a clear return on what you own and not just a payment for work completed. The idea would be that you could exit the business as an operator, pay someone else to do exactly what you do, and you would continue to get that profit return at the end of the year. This is when a business acts like a true asset. Whether you take your money in salary or profit distributions (or dividends) depending on your structure, taxes are about the same. W2'd salaries get normal employee contributed taxes, but then of course the company matches these. It is identical if you take a guaranteed payment or distribution that gets hit with self employment taxes. Profits are also going to get hit with the same taxes. Follow ups: 1) A fair salary would be a competitive market wage for the position you hold within the business. What is left over would be considered true profits and not just fabricated profits by taking a lower than market wage to boost the appearance of profitability. 2) Shareholders requesting salary information would be covered in your Operating Agreement or Shareholder Agreement. This might be terms you set with your investors. Or you might simply set a term that you only need approval if a single salary exceeds a cap (like $250,000). Which would mean you would need to present why you deserve a higher salary and have your board approve (if you are governed by said board via your investors). Profitability is a different ballpark. Your investors most likely have a right to see a monthly, quarterly, and/or annual Profit & Loss statement which should clearly state profitability. I can't imagine running a completely closed book company to my investors. Actually... I can't really imagine ever investing in a company where I am not permitted to see the financials. Something to also consider here is the threat of trying to keep your profit numbers low in order to not pay taxes or to pay yourself a higher salary. If you ever plan to sell or exit the company, most widely accepted valuations of a business are done from profits (or EBIDTA). You might think you are saving yourself a couple points on taxes by avoiding profits in the short term, but if you exit the business and get a 3-5X (or even up to 12X in some cases) multiplier on your annual profits, you might be kicking yourself for trying to hide them through your accounting practices. Buyers will often sniff out an owner who created false profits by not paying themselves, but what's harder to do is figure out how much profits should have been when there were none on the books. By saving yourself $100,000 in taxes this year, could add up to close to $1,000,000 in an acquisition. Good luck.\"" } ]

[ { "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": "238474", "title": "", "text": "If it helps you to think about it, long is equivalent to betting for the upside and short is equivalent to betting for the downside. If you are long on options, then you expect the value of such options to increase. If you are long an option, then you own the option. If you are short an option, then generally you sold the option. Someone who is short a call (sometimes called the writer or occasionally the issuer) has sold a call option to someone who is now long a call. Buying a call option that will increase in value is itself a form of investment, just as it's investment to buy stock or other instruments hoping they will appreciate in value. An option's value will rise or fall with the underlying, so being long an option is a way to be long in the underlying. Someone can be long in a stock by buying the stock, or long in a call by buying call options in the stock. The long call generally requires less initial investment than buying the underlying, and lets the option-holder avoid the asset downside during the option term. The risk is that the asset may not appreciate to the point that the call option will pay off. In the conceptual sense, a share of stock is a particular right to the profits and assets of a corporation, both in form of dividends and in liquidation. An option is a particular right to the the share of stock. It's just a further way to formalize and subdivide the various property rights that exist in a corporation. If you can buy a piece of paper with particular rights to corporate profits and assets, then you can buy another piece of paper with particular rights to the former piece of paper." }, { "docid": "82194", "title": "", "text": "\"Random deposits are a bit like playing the lotery - especially if one is frequently chasing \"\"hot tips\"\". You might make it big, but the odds are vastly against you. \"\"Random\"\" deposits into various investments won't be optimal, because such \"\"random\"\" decisions will not be properly diversified and balanced. Various investments have different rates of risk and return. \"\"Random\"\" deposits will not take this into account for an individual's personal situation. In addition to needing to research individual investments as they are made, investments also need to be considered as part of a whole financial picture. A few considerations for example: Simply put, random isn't a financial strategy.\"" }, { "docid": "216964", "title": "", "text": "You can't predict when to buy a stock during the day to guarantee not having a loss for the day. In the short run stock prices are really pretty random. There are many day traders who try to accomplish exactly this and most of them lose money. If you don't believe me, create an account on Investopedia and use their free stock market simulator and try day trading for a few months." }, { "docid": "433471", "title": "", "text": "I understand the question, I think. The tough thing is that trades over the next brief time are random, or appear so. So, just as when a stock is $10.00 bid / $10.05 ask, if you place an order below the ask, a tick down in price may get you a fill, or if the next trades are flat to higher, you might see the close at $10.50, and no fill as it never went down to your limit. This process is no different for options than for stocks. When I want to trade options, I make sure the strike has decent volume, and enter a market order. Edit - I reworded a bit to clarify. The Black–Scholes is a model, not a rigid equation. Say I discover an option that's underpriced, but it trades under right until it expires. It's not like there's a reversion to the mean that will occur. There are some very sophisticated traders who use these tools to trade in some very high volumes, for them, it may produce results. For the small trader you need to know why you want to buy a stock or its option and not worry about the last $0.25 of its price." }, { "docid": "148270", "title": "", "text": "The Art of Short Selling by Kathryn Stanley providers for many case studies about what kind of opportunities to look for from a fundamental analysis perspective. Typically things you can look for are financing terms that are not very favorable (expensive interest payments) as well as other constrictions on cash flow, arbitrary decisions by management (poor management), and dilution that doesn't make sense (usually another product of poor management). From a quantitative analysis perspective, you can gain insight by looking at the credit default swap rate history, if the company is listed in that market. The things that affect a CDS spread are different than what immediately affects share prices. Some market participants trade DOOMs over Credit Default Swaps, when they are betting on a company's insolvency. But looking at large trades in the options market isn't indicative of anything on its own, but you can use that information to help confirm your opinion. You can certainly jump on a trend using bad headlines, but typically by the time it is headline news, the majority of the downward move in the share price has already happened, or the stock opened lower because the news came outside of market hours. You have to factor in the short interest of the company, if the short interest is high then it will be very easy to squeeze the shorts resulting in a rally of share prices, the opposite of what you want. A short squeeze doesn't change the fundamental or quantitative reasons you wanted to short. The technical analysis should only be used to help you decide your entry and exit price ranges amongst an otherwise random walk. The technical rules you created sound like something a very basic program or stock screener might be able to follow, but it doesn't tell you anything, you will have to do research in the company's public filings yourself." }, { "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": "564214", "title": "", "text": "In India the only way to short a stock is using F&O which I personally find to be sufficient for any shorting needs. However, Futures can be generally sold for upto 3 months but options have more choices which are even upto 5 years you can buy a put of a longer duration and when you want to do buy-back, you can directly sell the same option by squaring-off the trade before expiry date. You generally get approximately the same profit as shorting but you get to limit your risk." }, { "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": "93157", "title": "", "text": "\"TLDR: You will probably need to move to a different employer to get the raise you want/need/deserve. Some employers, in the US, punish longevity through a number of practices. My wife worked as a nurse for about 20 years. During that time she had many employers, leveraging raises with job changes. She quit nursing about 6 years ago and was being paid $38/hour at the time. She had a friend that worked in the same system for 18 years. They had the same position in the same hospital that friend's current rate of pay: $26/hour. You probably don't want to be that person. Given your Stack Overflow participation, I would assume you are some type of web developer. I would recommend updating your resume, and moving for a 20% increase or more. You'll get it as it is a great time to be a web developer. Spending on IT tends to go in cycles, and right now budgets are very healthy for hiring new talent. While your current company might not have enough money in the budget to give you a raise, they would not hesitate hiring someone with your skills at 95K if they had an opening. Its common, but frustrating to all that are involved except the bean counters that looks at people like us as commodities. Think about this: both sides of the table agree that you deserve a 5K raise. But lets say next year only 3k is in the budget. So you are out the 5k you should have been given this year, plus the 2k that you won't get, plus whatever raise was fair for you next year. That is a lot of money! Time to go! Don't bother on holding onto any illusions of a counter offer by your current employer. There will be too much resentment. Shake the dust off your feet and move on. Edit: Some naysayers will cite short work histories as problems for future employment. It could happen in a small number of shops, but short work histories are common in technology that recruiters rarely bat an eye. If they do, as with any objection, it is up to you to sell yourself. In Cracking the Code Interview the author cites that no one is really expecting you to stay beyond 5 years. Something like this would work just fine: \"\"I left Acme because there were indications of poor financial health. Given the hot market at the time I was able to find a new position without the worry of pending layoffs.\"\" If you are a contractor six month assignments are the norm. Also many technology resumes have overlapping assignments. Its what happens when someone is in demand.\"" }, { "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": "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": "482238", "title": "", "text": "You don't mention any specific numbers, so I'll answer in generalities. Say I buy a call option today, and I short the underlying stock with the delta. The value will be the value of the option you bought less the value of the stock you are short. (your premium is not included in the value since it's a sunk cost, but is reflected in your profit/loss) So, say I go out and adjust my portfolio, so I am still delta short in the underlying. It's still the value of your options, less the value of the underlying you are short. What is my PnL over this period? The end value of your portfolio less what you paid for that value, namely the money you received shorting the underlyings less the premium you paid for the option." }, { "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": "253998", "title": "", "text": "\"&gt; It just has to finish below the strike price of the short (which can be higher than the stock's current price). You're talking about a put option. That's one \"\"short\"\" strategy, but it's not shorting a stock, so the terminology is a little jumbled. There are reasons to not do straight options, because they can be quite risky, and you have to get the time frame correct.\"" }, { "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": "588569", "title": "", "text": "\"I'm just trying to visualize the costs of trading. Say I set up an account to trade something (forex, stock, even bitcoin) and I was going to let a random generator determine when I should buy or sell it. If I do this, I would assume I have an equal probability to make a profit or a loss. Your question is what a mathematician would call an \"\"ill-posed problem.\"\" It makes it a challenge to answer. The short answer is \"\"no.\"\" We will have to consider three broad cases for types of assets and two time intervals. Let us start with a very short time interval. The bid-ask spread covers the anticipated cost to the market maker of holding an asset bought in the market equal to the opportunity costs over the half-life of the holding period. A consequence of this is that you are nearly guaranteed to lose money if your time interval between trades is less than the half-life of the actual portfolio of the market maker. To use a dice analogy, imagine having to pay a fee per roll before you can gamble. You can win, but it will be biased toward losing. Now let us go to the extreme opposite time period, which is that you will buy now and sell one minute before you die. For stocks, you would have received the dividends plus any stocks you sold from mergers. Conversely, you would have had to pay the dividends on your short sales and received a gain on every short stock that went bankrupt. Because you have to pay interest on short sales and dividends passed, you will lose money on a net basis to the market maker. Maybe you are seeing a pattern here. The phrase \"\"market maker\"\" will come up a lot. Now let us look at currencies. In the long run, if the current fiat money policy regime holds, you will lose a lot of money. Deflation is not a big deal under a commodity money regime, but it is a problem under fiat money, so central banks avoid it. So your long currency holdings will depreciate. Your short would appreciate, except you have to pay interest on them at a rate greater than the rate of inflation to the market maker. Finally, for commodities, no one will allow perpetual holding of short positions in commodities because people want them delivered. Because insider knowledge is presumed under the commodities trading laws, a random investor would be at a giant disadvantage similar to what a chess player who played randomly would face against a grand master chess player. There is a very strong information asymmetry in commodity contracts. There are people who actually do know how much cotton there is in the world, how much is planted in the ground, and what the demand will be and that knowledge is not shared with the world at large. You would be fleeced. Can I also assume that probabilistically speaking, a trader cannot do worst than random? Say, if I had to guess the roll of a dice, my chance of being correct can't be less than 16.667%. A physicist, a con man, a magician and a statistician would tell you that dice rolls and coin tosses are not random. While we teach \"\"fair\"\" coins and \"\"fair\"\" dice in introductory college classes to simplify many complex ideas, they also do not exist. If you want to see a funny version of the dice roll game, watch the 1962 Japanese movie Zatoichi. It is an action movie, but it begins with a dice game. Consider adopting a Bayesian perspective on probability as it would be a healthier perspective based on how you are thinking about this problem. A \"\"frequency\"\" approach always assumes the null model is true, which is what you are doing. Had you tried this will real money, your model would have been falsified, but you still wouldn't know the true model. Yes, you can do much worse than 1/6th of the time. Even if you are trying to be \"\"fair,\"\" you have not accounted for the variance. Extending that logic, then for an inexperienced trader, is it right to say then that it's equally difficult to purposely make a loss then it is to purposely make a profit? Because if I can purposely make a loss, I would purposely just do the opposite of what I'm doing to make a profit. So in the dice example, if I can somehow lower my chances of winning below 16.6667%, it means I would simply need to bet on the other 5 numbers to give myself a better than 83% chance of winning. If the game were \"\"fair,\"\" but for things like forex the rules of the game are purposefully changed by the market maker to maximize long-run profitability. Under US law, forex is not regulated by anything other than common law. As a result, the market maker can state any price, including prices far from the market, with the intent to make a system used by actors losing systems, such as to trigger margin calls. The prices quoted by forex dealers in the US move loosely with the global rates, but vary enough that only the dealer should make money systematically. A fixed strategy would promote loss. You are assuming that only you know the odds and they would let you profit from your 83.33 percentage chance of winning. So then, is the costs of trading from a purely probabilistic point of view simply the transaction costs? No matter what, my chances cannot be worse than random and if my trading system has an edge that is greater than the percentage of the transaction that is transaction cost, then I am probabilistically likely to make a profit? No, the cost of trading is the opportunity cost of the money. The transaction costs are explicit costs, but you have ignored the implicit costs of foregone interest and foregone happiness using the money for other things. You will want to be careful here in understanding probability because the distribution of returns for all of these assets lack a first moment and so there cannot be a \"\"mean return.\"\" A modal return would be an intellectually more consistent perspective, implying you should use an \"\"all-or-nothing\"\" cost function to evaluate your methodology.\"" }, { "docid": "20022", "title": "", "text": "Use the Black-Scholes formula. If you know the current price, an options strike price, time until expiration, and risk-free interest rate, then knowing the market price of the option will tell you what the market's estimation of the volatility is. This does rely on a few assumptions, such as Gaussian random walk, but those are reasonable assumptions for most stocks. You can also get a list of past stock prices, put them in Excel, and ask Excel to calculate the standard deviation with stdev.s(), but that gives you the past volatility. The market's estimate of future volatility is more relevant." }, { "docid": "357324", "title": "", "text": "Cart's answer is basically correct, but I'd like to elaborate: A futures contract obligates both the buyer of a contract and the seller of a contract to conduct the underlying transaction (settle) at the agreed-upon future date and price written into the contract. Aside from settlement, the only other way either party can get out of the transaction is to initiate a closing transaction, which means: The party that sold the contract buys back another similar contract to close his position. The party that bought the contract can sell the contract on to somebody else. Whereas, an option contract provides the buyer of the option with the choice of completing the transaction. Because it's a choice, the buyer can choose to walk away from the transaction if the option exercise price is not attractive relative to the underlying stock price at the date written into the contract. When an option buyer walks away, the option is said to have expired. However – and this is the part I think needs elaboration – the original seller (writer) of the option contract doesn't have a choice. If a buyer chooses to exercise the option contract the seller wrote, the seller is obligated to conduct the transaction. In such a case, the seller's option contract is said to have been assigned. Only if the buyer chooses not to exercise does the seller's obligation go away. Before the option expires, the option seller can close their position by initiating a closing transaction. But, the seller can't simply walk away like the option buyer can." }, { "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": "305274", "title": "", "text": "Cash would be the better alternative assuming both stocks take a major hit in ALL categories AND the Fed raise rates at the same time for some reason. Money market funds that may have relatively low yields at the moment would likely be one of the few securities not to be repriced downward as interest rates rising would decrease bond values which could be another crash as I could somewhat question how broad of a crash are you talking here. There are more than a few different market segments so that while some parts may get hit really hard in a crash, would you really want to claim everything goes down? Blackrock's graphic shows in 2008 how bonds did the best and only it and cash had positive returns in that year but there is something to be said for how big is a crash: 20%, 50%, 90%?" } ]

[ { "docid": "538940", "title": "", "text": "\"**David F. Swensen** David F. Swensen (born 1954) is an American investor, endowment fund manager, and philanthropist. He has been the chief investment officer at Yale University since 1985. Swensen is responsible for managing and investing Yale's endowment assets and investment funds, which total $25.4 billion as of September 2016. He invented The Yale Model with Dean Takahashi, an application of the modern portfolio theory commonly known in the investing world as the \"\"Endowment Model.\"\" His investing philosophy has been dubbed the \"\"Swensen Approach\"\" and is unique in that it stresses allocation of capital in Treasury inflation protection securities, government bonds, real estate funds, emerging market stocks, domestic stocks, and developing world international equities. *** ^[ [^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 ^| ^v0.24\"" }, { "docid": "336005", "title": "", "text": "To issue corporate grade bonds the approval process very nearly matches that for issuing corporate equity. You must register with the sec, and then generally there is a initial debt offering similar to an IPO. (I say similar in terms of the process itself, but the actual sale of bonds is nothing like that for equities). It would be rare for a partnership to be that large as to issue debt in the form of bonds (although there are some that are pretty big), but I suppose it is possible as long as they want to file with the sec. Beyond that a business could privately place bonds with a large investor but there is still registration requirements with the sec. All that being said, it is also pretty rare for public bonds to be issued by a company that doesn't already have public equity. And the amounts we are talking about here are huge. The most common trade in corporate debt is a round lot of 100,000. So this isn't something a small corporation would have access to or have a need for. Generally financing for a smaller business comes from a bank." }, { "docid": "409859", "title": "", "text": "Yes, bond funds are marked to market, so they will decline as the composition of their holdings will. Households actually have unimpressive relative levels of credit to equity holdings. The reason why is because there is little return on credit, making it irrational to hold any amount greater than to fund future liquidity needs, risk adjusted and time discounted. The vast majority of credit is held by insurance companies. Pension funds have large stakes as well. Banks hold even fewer bonds since they try to sell them as soon as they've made them. Insurance companies are forced to hold a large percentage of their floats in credit then preferred equity. While this dulls their returns, it's not a large problem for them because they typically hold bonds until maturity. Only the ones who misprice the risk of insurance will have to sell at unfavorable prices. Being able to predict interest rates thus bond prices accurately would make one the best bond manager in the world. While it does look like inflation will rise again soon just as it has during every other US expansion, can it be assured when commodity prices are high in real terms and look like they may be in a collapse? The banking industry would have to produce credit at a much higher rate to counter the deflation of all physical goods. Households typically shun assets at low prices to pursue others at high prices, so their holdings of bonds ETFs should be expected to decline during a bond collapse. If insurance companies find it less costly to hold ETFs then they will contribute to an increase in bond ETF supply." }, { "docid": "420316", "title": "", "text": "Write off the entire asset class of corporate bonds? Finance theory says yes, the only two asset classes that you need are stocks and treasury bills (very short-term US government bonds). See the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM)." }, { "docid": "79275", "title": "", "text": "Foreign stocks tend to be more volatile -- higher risk trades off against higher return potential, always. The better reason for having some money in that area is that, as with bonds, it moves out-of-sync with the US markets and once you pick your preferred distribution, maintaining that balance semi-automatically takes advantage of that to improve your return-vs-risk position. I have a few percent of my total investments in an international stock index fund, and a few percent in an international REIT, both being fairly low-fee. (Low fees mean more of the money reaches you, and seems to be one of the better reasons for preferring one fund over another following the same segment of the market.) They're there because the model my investment advisor uses -- and validated with monte-carlo simulation of my specific mix -- shows that keeping them in the mix at this low level is likely to result in a better long-term outcome than if i left them out. No guarantees, but probabilities lean toward this specfic mix doing what i need. I don't pretend to be able to justify that via theory or to explain why these specific ratios work... but I understand enough about the process to trust that they are on (perhaps of many) reasonable solutions to get the best odds given my specific risk tolerance, timeline, and distaste for actively managing my money more than a few times a year. If that." }, { "docid": "418528", "title": "", "text": "\"Having cash and bonds in your portfolio isn't just about balancing out the risk and volatility inherent in equities. Consider: If you are 100% invested in equities and the market declines by 30%, you'll be hard pressed to come up with additional money to \"\"buy low\"\". You'll miss out on the rebalancing bonus. But, if you make a point of keeping some portion of your portfolio in cash and bonds, then when the market has such a decline (and it will), you'll be able to rebalance your portfolio back to target weights — i.e. redeploy some of your cash and bonds into equities to take advantage of the lower prices.\"" }, { "docid": "87659", "title": "", "text": "\"This effect has much empirical evidence as googling \"\"dividend price effect evidence\"\" will show. As the financial economic schools of thought run the gamut so do the theories. One school goes as far to call it a market inefficiency since the earning power thus the value of an equity that's affected is no different or at least not riskier by the percentage of market capitalization paid. Most papers offer that by the efficient market hypothesis and arbitrage theory, the value of an equity is known by the market at any point in time given by its price, so if an equity pays a dividend, the adjusted price would be efficient since the holder receives no excess of the price instantly before payment as after including the dividend since that dividend information was already discounted so would otherwise produce an arbitrage.\"" }, { "docid": "215224", "title": "", "text": "You give extreme importance to the Laffer curve, while ignoring monetary velocity. Yet, the evidence for the first is scant to non-existent, while the evidence for the latter is overwhelming. To quote one of the [greatest theorists of all time](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman), who went by the *feel* and the *beauty* of equations: &gt; It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. I am a trained condensed matter physicist, and the theory vs experiment debates have played out in our field decades back. Without empirical observations, you are wrong." }, { "docid": "30946", "title": "", "text": "\"he is saying that \"\"QE\"\" meaning \"\"quantitative easing\"\" meaning \"\"the theory that the government flooded the markets with money, artificially driving up the price of stocks\"\" meant that hedge funds, which HEDGE, and benefit from an up-and-down market, couldn't win in a market where it just kept going up. It's basically a conspiracy theory bears have been pushing for years \"\"QE artificially inflated the market, it's gonna crash!\"\"\"" }, { "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": "548967", "title": "", "text": "US bond traders have begun a new trading day looking at higher prices for Treasury paper while Wall Street is set to open lower. The mood swing comes as the head of China’s central bank has summoned the spectre of a Minsky Moment. Hyman Minsky is a economist famed for his theory about the risk of a sudden collapse in asset prices triggered by excessive debt or credit growth. The recent surge in global equity and credit markets has been accompanied by a number of strategists warning of a Minsky scenario and that chorus has elevated in tone by Zhou Xiaochuan, the PBOC governor. He reportedly expressed concern that corporate and household debt are rising too quickly and said China need to defend itself from excessive optimism that could lead to a “Minsky Moment’’. Stocks in Hong Kong closed down 1.9 per cent, its biggest fall in two months, led by property companies, while havens such as US government bonds gained. The 10-year Treasury note yield has dipped to 2.31 per cent, while gold has rebounded from early losses to rise 0.4 per cent. The yen, another haven barometer has appreciated 0.4 per cent in value versus the dollar. S&amp;P equity futures are now down 0.4 after the broad market closed at a record on Wednesday. Ian Lyngen at BMO Capital Markets notes: We’d be remiss in our assessment of the recent bid if we didn’t acknowledge that the initial downtrade in risk assets followed comments from PBOC governor Zhou citing the risk of a “Minsky Moment” for Chinese assets. This is the notion that exhausted gains in asset prices and credit growth lead to significant market collapses – also known as The Pessimists’ Delight. As today marks the 30th anniversary of the day that the Dow had its largest single-day selloff in history and Wednesday’s close above 23,000 set a new record of the index, Zhou’s comments seem very appropriately timed." }, { "docid": "573898", "title": "", "text": "\"I'm still very new to the world of finance. I'm learning about all of the derivatives and how money is made off of them, but it's crazy to me that everyone involved neglected the risk aspect of this. In hindsight, it's so easy to explain what was happening. I guess when everyone is making money hand over fist, it's easy to look the other way. Even the federal gov't played a tremendous role in the crash. Looking at that FRED graph is probably the easiest way to explain the ramifications of the crash. I'm reading [All the Devils Are Here](https://www.amazon.com/All-Devils-Are-Here-Financial/dp/159184438X) right now that was recommended to me by my GF's father. It gives context to the crash in a digestible way, but isn't too dumbed down. I highly recommend it. The man played for the USA on the \"\"Miracle\"\" team and then went on to become a successful bonds trader. I've learned more from my conversations with him than I think I'll ever learn in school. Dude is brilliant and can go for hours on anything finance related.\"" }, { "docid": "47714", "title": "", "text": "Any publicly traded financial instrument can be sold short, in theory. There are, however, many regulations associated with short sales of US equities that may prevent certain stocks from being sold short at certain times or through certain brokers. Some examples: the most basic requirement (this isn't a regulation, it's just the definition of a short sale) is that you or your broker must have access to someone willing to loan you his/her shares. If you are interested in shorting a security with few shares outstanding or low trade volume, there may simply not be enough people in the world willing to loan you theirs. Alternatively, there may be a shareholder willing to loan shares, but your broker may not have a relationship with the clearing house that shareholder is using. A larger/better/different broker might be able to help. threshold securities list - since 2005, each day certain securities are not allowed to be sold short based on their recent history of liquidity. Basically, if a certain number of transactions in a security have not been correctly settled over the past few days, then the SEC has reason to believe that short sales (which require extra transactions) are at higher risk of falling through. circuit breaker a.k.a. alternative uptick - since 2011, during certain market conditions, exchanges are now required to reject short sales for certain securities in order to prevent market crashes/market abuse." }, { "docid": "534670", "title": "", "text": "There is no such animal. If you are looking to give up FDIC protection, investing in a short-term, high quality bond fund or a tax-free bond fund with short durations is a good way to balance safety vs. return. Make sure you buy funds -- buying individual bonds isn't appropriate for folks without a high net worth. Another option is savings bonds, but the yields on these is awful today." }, { "docid": "599436", "title": "", "text": "\"1. Interest rates What you should know is that the longer the \"\"term\"\" of a bond fund, the more it will be affected by interest rates. So a short-term bond fund will not be subject to large gains or losses due to rate changes, an intermediate-term bond fund will be subject to moderate gains or losses, and a long-term bond fund will be subject to the largest gains or losses. When a book or financial planner says to buy \"\"bonds\"\" with no other qualification, they almost always mean investment-grade intermediate-term bond funds (or for individual bonds, the equivalent would be a bond ladder averaging an intermediate term). If you want technical details, look at the \"\"average duration\"\" or \"\"average maturity\"\" of the bond fund; as a rough guide, if the duration is 10, then a 1% change in interest rates would be a 10% gain or loss on the fund. Another thing you can do is look at long-term (10 years or ideally longer) performance history on some short, intermediate, and long term bond index funds, and you can see how the long term funds bounced around more. Non-investment-grade bonds (aka junk bonds or high yield bonds) are more affected by factors other than interest rates, including some of the same factors (economic booms or recessions) that affect stocks. As a result, they aren't as good for diversifying a portfolio that otherwise consists of stocks. (Having stocks, investment grade bonds, and also a little bit in high-yield bonds can add diversification, though. Just don't replace your bond allocation with high-yield bonds.) A variety of \"\"complicated\"\" bonds exist (convertible bonds are an example) and these are tough to analyze. There are also \"\"floating rate\"\" bonds (bank loan funds), these have minimal interest rate sensitivity because the rate goes up to offset rate rises. These funds still have credit risks, in the credit crisis some of them lost a lot of money. 2. Diversification The purpose of diversification is risk control. Your non-bond funds will outperform in many years, but in other years (say the -37% S&P 500 drop in 2008) they may not. You will not know in advance which year you'll get. You get risk control in at least a few ways. There's also an academic Modern Portfolio Theory explanation for why you should diversify among risky assets (aka stocks), something like: for a given desired risk/return ratio, it's better to leverage up a diverse portfolio than to use a non-diverse portfolio, because risk that can be eliminated through diversification is not compensated by increased returns. The theory also goes that you should choose your diversification between risk assets and the risk-free asset according to your risk tolerance (i.e. select the highest return with tolerable risk). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_portfolio_theory for excruciating detail. The translation of the MPT stuff to practical steps is typically, put as much in stock index funds as you can tolerate over your time horizon, and put the rest in (intermediate-term investment-grade) bond index funds. That's probably what your planner is asking you to do. My personal view, which is not the standard view, is that you should take as much risk as you need to take, not as much as you think you can tolerate: http://blog.ometer.com/2010/11/10/take-risks-in-life-for-savings-choose-a-balanced-fund/ But almost everyone else will say to do the 80/20 if you have decades to retirement and feel you can tolerate the risk, so my view that 60/40 is the max desirable allocation to stocks is not mainstream. Your planner's 80/20 advice is the standard advice. Before doing 100% stocks I'd give you at least a couple cautions: See also:\"" }, { "docid": "374225", "title": "", "text": "\"First of all, it's great you're now taking full advantage of your employer match – i.e. free money. Next, on the question of the use of a life cycle / target date fund as a \"\"hedge\"\": Life cycle funds were introduced for hands-off, one-stop-shopping investors who don't like a hassle or don't understand. Such funds are gaining in popularity: employers can use them as a default choice for automatic enrollment, which results in more participation in retirement savings plans than if employees had to opt-in. I think life cycle funds are a good innovation for that reason. But, the added service and convenience typically comes with higher fees. If you are going to be hands-off, make sure you're cost-conscious: Fees can devastate a portfolio's performance. In your case, it sounds like you are willing to do some work for your portfolio. If you are confident that you've chosen a good equity glide path – that is, the initial and final stock/bond allocations and the rebalancing plan to get from one to the other – then you're not going to benefit much by having a life cycle fund in your portfolio duplicating your own effort with inferior components. (I assume you are selecting great low-cost, liquid index funds for your own strategy!) Life cycle are neat, but replicating them isn't rocket science. However, I see a few cases in which life cycle funds may still be useful even if one has made a decision to be more involved in portfolio construction: Similar to your case: You have a company savings plan that you're taking advantage of because of a matching contribution. Chances are your company plan doesn't offer a wide variety of funds. Since a life cycle fund is available, it can be a good choice for that account. But make sure fees aren't out of hand. If much lower-cost equity and bond funds are available, consider them instead. Let's say you had another smaller account that you were unable to consolidate into your main account. (e.g. a Traditional IRA vs. your Roth, and you didn't necessarily want to convert it.) Even if that account had access to a wide variety of funds, it still might not be worth the added hassle or trading costs of owning and rebalancing multiple funds inside the smaller account. There, perhaps, the life cycle fund can help you out, while you use your own strategy in your main account. Finally, let's assume you had a single main account and you buy partially into the idea of a life cycle fund and you find a great one with low fees. Except: you want a bit of something else in your portfolio not provided by the life cycle fund, e.g. some more emerging markets, international, or commodity stock exposure. (Is this one reason you're doing it yourself?) In that case, where the life cycle fund doesn't quite have everything you want, you could still use it for the bulk of the portfolio (e.g. 85-95%) and then select one or two specific additional ETFs to complement it. Just make sure you factor in those additional components into the overall equity weighting and adjust your life cycle fund choice accordingly (e.g. perhaps go more conservative in the life cycle, to compensate.) I hope that helps! Additional References:\"" }, { "docid": "210236", "title": "", "text": "\"I think you're on the right track with that strategy. If you want to learn more about this strategy, I'd recommend \"\"The Intelligent Asset Allocator\"\" by William Bernstein. As for the Über–Tuber portfolio you linked to, my only concern would be that it is diversified in everything except for the short-term bond component, which is 40%. It might be worth looking at some portfolios that have more than one bond allocation -- possibly diversifying more across corporate vs government, and intermediate vs short term. Even the Cheapskate's portfolio located immediately above the Über–Tuber has 20% Corporate and 20% Government. Also note that they mention: Because it includes so many funds, it would be expensive and unwieldy for an account less than $100,000. Regarding your question about the disadvantages of an index-fund-based asset allocation strategy:\"" }, { "docid": "52149", "title": "", "text": "Inflows to the US equity market can come from a variety of sources; for instance: You were paid a year-end bonus and decided to invest it in US equities instead of foreign equities, bonds, savings or debt reduction. You sold foreign equities, bonds, or other non-US equities and decided to invest in US equities. You decided a better use of cash in a savings account, CD or money market fund, was to invest in US equities. If for every buyer, there's a seller, doesn't that also mean that there were $25B in outflows in the same time period? Not necessarily. Generally, the mentions we see of inflows and outflows are net; that is, the gross investment in US equities, minus gross sales of US equities equals net inflows or outflows. The mere fact that I sold my position in, say, Caterpillar, doesn't mean that I had to re-invest in US equities. I may have bought a bond or a CD or a house. Because of fluctuations in existing stocks market value, bankruptcies and new issues, US equities never are and never will be a zero-sum game." }, { "docid": "583175", "title": "", "text": "And it'll be a big issue again when our current housing bubble bursts. Housing is even more expensive now than it was in 2008 before the crash, that just means people have even more equity to borrow against and end up underwater. Our next real estate crash is going to be much worse than 2008's." } ]

[ { "docid": "365298", "title": "", "text": "\"Diversify into leveraged short/bear ETFs and then you can quit your job and yell at your boss \"\"F you I'm short your house!\"\" edit: this is a quote from Greg Lippmann and mentioned in the book \"\"The Big Short\"\"\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "599436", "title": "", "text": "\"1. Interest rates What you should know is that the longer the \"\"term\"\" of a bond fund, the more it will be affected by interest rates. So a short-term bond fund will not be subject to large gains or losses due to rate changes, an intermediate-term bond fund will be subject to moderate gains or losses, and a long-term bond fund will be subject to the largest gains or losses. When a book or financial planner says to buy \"\"bonds\"\" with no other qualification, they almost always mean investment-grade intermediate-term bond funds (or for individual bonds, the equivalent would be a bond ladder averaging an intermediate term). If you want technical details, look at the \"\"average duration\"\" or \"\"average maturity\"\" of the bond fund; as a rough guide, if the duration is 10, then a 1% change in interest rates would be a 10% gain or loss on the fund. Another thing you can do is look at long-term (10 years or ideally longer) performance history on some short, intermediate, and long term bond index funds, and you can see how the long term funds bounced around more. Non-investment-grade bonds (aka junk bonds or high yield bonds) are more affected by factors other than interest rates, including some of the same factors (economic booms or recessions) that affect stocks. As a result, they aren't as good for diversifying a portfolio that otherwise consists of stocks. (Having stocks, investment grade bonds, and also a little bit in high-yield bonds can add diversification, though. Just don't replace your bond allocation with high-yield bonds.) A variety of \"\"complicated\"\" bonds exist (convertible bonds are an example) and these are tough to analyze. There are also \"\"floating rate\"\" bonds (bank loan funds), these have minimal interest rate sensitivity because the rate goes up to offset rate rises. These funds still have credit risks, in the credit crisis some of them lost a lot of money. 2. Diversification The purpose of diversification is risk control. Your non-bond funds will outperform in many years, but in other years (say the -37% S&P 500 drop in 2008) they may not. You will not know in advance which year you'll get. You get risk control in at least a few ways. There's also an academic Modern Portfolio Theory explanation for why you should diversify among risky assets (aka stocks), something like: for a given desired risk/return ratio, it's better to leverage up a diverse portfolio than to use a non-diverse portfolio, because risk that can be eliminated through diversification is not compensated by increased returns. The theory also goes that you should choose your diversification between risk assets and the risk-free asset according to your risk tolerance (i.e. select the highest return with tolerable risk). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_portfolio_theory for excruciating detail. The translation of the MPT stuff to practical steps is typically, put as much in stock index funds as you can tolerate over your time horizon, and put the rest in (intermediate-term investment-grade) bond index funds. That's probably what your planner is asking you to do. My personal view, which is not the standard view, is that you should take as much risk as you need to take, not as much as you think you can tolerate: http://blog.ometer.com/2010/11/10/take-risks-in-life-for-savings-choose-a-balanced-fund/ But almost everyone else will say to do the 80/20 if you have decades to retirement and feel you can tolerate the risk, so my view that 60/40 is the max desirable allocation to stocks is not mainstream. Your planner's 80/20 advice is the standard advice. Before doing 100% stocks I'd give you at least a couple cautions: See also:\"" }, { "docid": "548967", "title": "", "text": "US bond traders have begun a new trading day looking at higher prices for Treasury paper while Wall Street is set to open lower. The mood swing comes as the head of China’s central bank has summoned the spectre of a Minsky Moment. Hyman Minsky is a economist famed for his theory about the risk of a sudden collapse in asset prices triggered by excessive debt or credit growth. The recent surge in global equity and credit markets has been accompanied by a number of strategists warning of a Minsky scenario and that chorus has elevated in tone by Zhou Xiaochuan, the PBOC governor. He reportedly expressed concern that corporate and household debt are rising too quickly and said China need to defend itself from excessive optimism that could lead to a “Minsky Moment’’. Stocks in Hong Kong closed down 1.9 per cent, its biggest fall in two months, led by property companies, while havens such as US government bonds gained. The 10-year Treasury note yield has dipped to 2.31 per cent, while gold has rebounded from early losses to rise 0.4 per cent. The yen, another haven barometer has appreciated 0.4 per cent in value versus the dollar. S&amp;P equity futures are now down 0.4 after the broad market closed at a record on Wednesday. Ian Lyngen at BMO Capital Markets notes: We’d be remiss in our assessment of the recent bid if we didn’t acknowledge that the initial downtrade in risk assets followed comments from PBOC governor Zhou citing the risk of a “Minsky Moment” for Chinese assets. This is the notion that exhausted gains in asset prices and credit growth lead to significant market collapses – also known as The Pessimists’ Delight. As today marks the 30th anniversary of the day that the Dow had its largest single-day selloff in history and Wednesday’s close above 23,000 set a new record of the index, Zhou’s comments seem very appropriately timed." }, { "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": "538940", "title": "", "text": "\"**David F. Swensen** David F. Swensen (born 1954) is an American investor, endowment fund manager, and philanthropist. He has been the chief investment officer at Yale University since 1985. Swensen is responsible for managing and investing Yale's endowment assets and investment funds, which total $25.4 billion as of September 2016. He invented The Yale Model with Dean Takahashi, an application of the modern portfolio theory commonly known in the investing world as the \"\"Endowment Model.\"\" His investing philosophy has been dubbed the \"\"Swensen Approach\"\" and is unique in that it stresses allocation of capital in Treasury inflation protection securities, government bonds, real estate funds, emerging market stocks, domestic stocks, and developing world international equities. *** ^[ [^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 ^| ^v0.24\"" }, { "docid": "309913", "title": "", "text": "As others have pointed out your bond funds should have short durations, preferably not more than about 2 years. If you are in a bond fund for the long haul meaning you do not have to draw on your bond fund a short time after interest rates have gone up, it is not a big issue. The fund's holdings will eventually turn over into higher interest bearing paper. If bonds do go down, you might want to add more to the fund(s) (see my comment on age-specific asset allocation below). Keep in mind that some stocks are interest sensitive, for example utility stocks which are used as an income source and their dividends compete with rates on CDs which are much safer. Right now CD rates are very low. This could change. It's possible that we may be in an unusually sensitive interest rate period that might have large effects on the stock market, yet to be determined. The reason is that rates have been so low for such a long time that folks that normally would have obtained income streams from bonds have turned to dividend bearing stocks. Some believe that recent market rises are due to such people seeking dividends to enhance cash inflows. If, and emphasis on if, this is true, we could see a sharp drop in the market as sell offs occur as those who want cash streams move from stocks to ultra safe, government insured CDs. Only time will tell if this is going to play out. If retirement for you is 15+ years in the future and the market goes down (bonds or equities), good stuff - it's a buying opportunity in whatever category has dropped. Most important is to keep an eye on your asset allocation and make sure it is appropriate to your age. You did not state the percentages in each category, so further discussion is impossible on that topic. With more than 15 years to go, I personally would be heavily weighted on the equity side, mostly mid-cap and some small equity funds or ETFs in both domestic and international markets. As you age, shuffle some equities into fixed income (bonds, CDs and the like). Work up an asset allocation plan - start thinking about it now. Don't wait." }, { "docid": "265551", "title": "", "text": "That's not what he's saying at all. Basically most of his argument (4 of 6 points) is the connection between bond prices and equity prices. It's not particularly interesting but it definitely doesn't always apply either. If bond yields fall, then so too should equity earnings yields if spreads remain relatively constant, i.e. higher equity prices. Additionally, if bond yields are low, then any future equity growth gets capitalized at a much higher value because discount rates are much lower. Again, not particularly insightful. The two interesting comments were about oil and cash as a % of assets at financial institutions. Both of these are likely linked to falling or low rates above, because banks can't invest profitably at low rates and hence hold cash and equivalents instead, and oil prices are more likely to fall in a low or falling inflation environment (implied by the low rates or Fed tightening). Really, I think hes's saying something more obvious but not necessarily trivial, which is if one asset class goes up, so too is another related one." }, { "docid": "47714", "title": "", "text": "Any publicly traded financial instrument can be sold short, in theory. There are, however, many regulations associated with short sales of US equities that may prevent certain stocks from being sold short at certain times or through certain brokers. Some examples: the most basic requirement (this isn't a regulation, it's just the definition of a short sale) is that you or your broker must have access to someone willing to loan you his/her shares. If you are interested in shorting a security with few shares outstanding or low trade volume, there may simply not be enough people in the world willing to loan you theirs. Alternatively, there may be a shareholder willing to loan shares, but your broker may not have a relationship with the clearing house that shareholder is using. A larger/better/different broker might be able to help. threshold securities list - since 2005, each day certain securities are not allowed to be sold short based on their recent history of liquidity. Basically, if a certain number of transactions in a security have not been correctly settled over the past few days, then the SEC has reason to believe that short sales (which require extra transactions) are at higher risk of falling through. circuit breaker a.k.a. alternative uptick - since 2011, during certain market conditions, exchanges are now required to reject short sales for certain securities in order to prevent market crashes/market abuse." }, { "docid": "53225", "title": "", "text": "One approach would be to create Journal Entries that debit asset accounts that are associated with these items and credit an Open Balance Equity account. The value of these contributions would have to be worked out with an accountant, as it depends on the lesser of the adjusted basis vs. the fair market value, as you then depreciate the amounts over time to take the depreciation as a business expense, and it adjusts your basis in the company (to calculate capital gains/losses when you sell). If there were multiple partners, or your accountant wants it this way, you could then debit open balance equity and credit the owner's contribution to a capital account in your name that represents your basis when you sell. From a pure accounting perspective, if the Open Balance Equity account would zero out, you could just skip it and directly credit the capital accounts, but I prefer the Open Balance Equity as it helps know the percentages of initial equity which may influence partner ownership percentages and identify anyone who needs to contribute more to the partnership." }, { "docid": "82767", "title": "", "text": "I disagree with the theory that SUPPLY needs to increase... stagnant sales can just as easily suggest either equilibrium between supply and demand, or a problem with purchasing power. I would want to know the home sale PRICES (today vs last month and vs last year)... and possibly salaries. if prices are the same, then we're more or less in equilibrium... if sale prices are dropping, then we're in trouble... but in either case I question whether adding supply will do anything except lower prices and push the market power towards the buyer." }, { "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": "319182", "title": "", "text": "\"I'm assuming that all the savings are of 'defined contribution' type, and not 'defined benefit' as per marktristan's comment to the original question. Aside from convenience of having all the pension money in one place, which may or may not be something you care about, there may be a benefit associated with being able to rebalance your portfolio when you need do. Say you invest your pension pot in a 60%/40% of equities and bonds respectively. Due higher risk/reward ratio of the equities part, in the long run equities tend to get 'overweight' turning your mix into 70%/30% or even 80%/20%, therefore raising your overall exposure to equities. General practice is to rebalance your portfolio every now and then, in this case, by selling some equities and buying more bonds (\"\"sell high, buy low\"\"). Now if you have few small pockets of pension money, it makes it harder to keep track of the overall asset allocation and actually do the rebalancing as you cannot see and trade everything from one place.\"" }, { "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": "405212", "title": "", "text": "\"In a comment you say, if the market crashes, doesn't \"\"regress to the mean\"\" mean that I should still expect 7% over the long run? That being the case, wouldn't I benefit from intentionally unbalancing my portfolio and going all in on equities? I can can still rebalance using new savings. No. Regress to the mean just tells you that the future rate is likely to average 7%. The past rate and the future rate are entirely unconnected. Consider a series: The running average is That running average is (slowly) regressing to the long term mean without ever a member of the series being above 7%. Real markets actually go farther than this though. Real value may be increasing by 7% per year, but prices may move differently. Then market prices may revert to the real value. This happened to the S&P 500 in 2000-2002. Then the market started climbing again in 2003. In your system, you would have bought into the falling markets of 2001 and 2002. And you would have missed the positive bond returns in those years. That's about a -25% annual shift in returns on that portion of your portfolio. Since that's a third of your portfolio, you'd have lost 8% more than with the balanced strategy each of those two years. Note that in that case, the market was in an over-valued bubble. The bubble spent three years popping and overshot the actual value. So 2003 was a good year for stocks. But the three year return was still -11%. In retrospect, investors should have gone all in on bonds before 2000 and switched back to stocks for 2003. But no one knew that in 2000. People in the know actually started backing off in 1998 rather than 2000 and missed out on the tail end of the bubble. The rebalancing strategy automatically helps with your regression to the mean. It sells expensive bonds and buys cheaper stocks on average. Occasionally it sells modest priced bonds and buys over-priced stocks. But rarely enough that it is a better strategy overall. Incidentally, I would consider a 33% share high for bonds. 30% is better. And that shouldn't increase as you age (less than 30% bonds may be practical when you are young enough). Once you get close to retirement (five to ten years), start converting some of your savings to cash equivalents. The cash equivalents are guaranteed not to lose value (but might not gain much). This gives you predictable returns for your immediate expenses. Once retired, try to keep about five years of expenses in cash equivalents. Then you don't have to worry about short term market fluctuations. Spend down your buffer until the market catches back up. It's true that bonds are less volatile than stocks, but they can still have bad years. A 70%/30% mix of stocks/bonds is safer than either alone and gives almost as good of a return as stocks alone. Adding more bonds actually increases your risk unless you carefully balance them with the right stocks. And if you're doing that, you don't need simplistic rules like a 70%/30% balance.\"" }, { "docid": "490077", "title": "", "text": "Different stakeholders receive cash flows at different times. The easiest way for me to remember is if you're a debt holder vs equity owner on an income statement. Interest payments are made before net income, so debt holders are repaid before any residual cash flows go to equity owners." }, { "docid": "483123", "title": "", "text": "\"The question is: how do you quantify investment risk? As Michael S says, one approach is to treat investment returns as a random variable. Bill Goetzmann (Yale finance professor) told me that if you accept that markets are efficient or that the price of an asset reflects it's underlying value, then changes in price represent changes in value, so standard deviation naturally becomes the appropriate measure for riskiness of an asset. Essentially, the more volatile an asset, the riskier it is. There is another school of thought that comes from Ben Graham and Warren Buffett, which says that volatility is not inherently risky. Rather, risk should be defined as the permanent loss of capital, so the riskiness of an asset is the probability of a permanent loss of capital invested. This is easy to do in casino games, based on basic probability such as roulette or slots. But what has been done with the various kinds of investment risks? My point is saying that certain bonds are \"\"low risk\"\" isn't good enough; I'd like some numbers--or at least a range of numbers--and therefore one could calculate expected payoff (in the statistics sense). Or can it not be done--and if not, why not? Investing is more art than science. In theory, a Triple-A bond rating means the asset is riskless or nearly riskless, but we saw that this was obviously wrong since several of the AAA mortgage backed securities (MBS) went under prior to the recent US recession. More recently, the current threat of default suggests that bond ratings are not entirely accurate, since US Treasuries are considered riskless assets. Investors often use bond ratings to evaluate investments - a bond is considered investment grade if it's BBB- or higher. To adequately price bonds and evaluate risk, there are too many factors to simply refer to a chart because things like the issuer, credit quality, liquidity risk, systematic risk, and unsystematic risk all play a factor. Another factor you have to consider is the overall portfolio. Markowitz showed that adding a riskier asset can actually lower the overall risk of a portfolio because of diversification. This is all under the assumption that risk = variance, which I think is bunk. I'm aware that Wall Street is nothing like roulette, but then again there must be some math and heavy economics behind calculating risk for individual investors. This is, after all, what \"\"quants\"\" are paid to do, in part. Is it all voodoo? I suspect some of it is, but not all of it. Quants are often involved in high frequency trading as well, but that's another note. There are complicated risk management products, such as the Aladdin system by BlackRock, which incorporate modern portfolio theory (Markowitz, Fama, Sharpe, Samuelson, etc) and financial formulas to manage risk. Crouhy's Risk Management covers some of the concepts applied. I also tend to think that when people point to the last x number of years of stock market performance, that is of less value than they expect. Even going back to 1900 provides \"\"only\"\" 110 years of data, and in my view, complex systems need more data than those 40,500 data points. 10,000 years' worth of data, ok, but not 110. Any books or articles that address these issues, or your own informed views, would be helfpul. I fully agree with you here. A lot of work is done in the Santa Fe Institute to study \"\"complex adaptive systems,\"\" and we don't have any big, clear theory as of yet. Conventional risk management is based on the ideas of modern portfolio theory, but a lot of that is seen to be wrong. Behavioral finance is introducing new ideas on how investors behave and why the old models are wrong, which is why I cannot suggest you study risk management and risk models because I and many skilled investors consider them to be largely wrong. There are many good books on investing, the best of which is Benjamin Graham's The Intelligent Investor. Although not a book on risk solely, it provides a different viewpoint on how to invest and covers how to protect investments via a \"\"Margin of Safety.\"\" Lastly, I'd recommend Against the Gods by Peter Bernstein, which covers the history of risk and risk analysis. It's not solely a finance book but rather a fascinating historical view of risk, and it helps but many things in context. Hope it helps!\"" }, { "docid": "271691", "title": "", "text": "\"That characterisation of arbitrage-free pricing sounds a bit like the \"\"relative vs. fundamental\"\" approaches to asset pricing that Cochrane outlines (in his text, *Asset Pricing*). Rebonato also makes this distinction with regard to term structure models in *Volatility and Correlation*. On one extreme you have CAPM-style models in which asset prices are completely determined by investors' risk preferences; on the other extreme, you would have something like a SABR-Libor Market Model where you take everything up to and including the volatility surface as given. What's interesting to me is the way in which these different classes of models get used in various parts of the financial industry. So, buy side firms tend to rely a lot more on equilibrium-style models, since they ultimately care about things like how the equity risk premium or the bond risk premium affect asset prices. In contrast, derivatives quants working at a big sell-side bank who are pricing exotics don't care about what the \"\"fundamental\"\" value of their underlying assets is; they just take that as given and price the exotic accordingly.\"" }, { "docid": "140189", "title": "", "text": "\"If I don't need this money for decades, meaning I can ride out periodical market crashes, why would I invest in bonds instead of funds that track broad stock market indexes? You wouldn't. But you can never be 100% sure that you really won't need the money for decades. Also, even if you don't need it for decades, you can never be 100% certain that the market will not be way down at the time, decades in the future, when you do need the money. The amount of your portfolio you allocate to bonds (relative to stocks) can be seen as a measure of your desire to guard against that uncertainty. I don't think it's accurate to say that \"\"the general consensus is that your portfolio should at least be 25% in bonds\"\". For a young investor with high risk tolerance, many would recommend less than that. For instance, this page from T. Rowe Price suggests no more than 10% bonds for those in their 20s or 30s. Basically you would put money into bonds rather than stocks to reduce the volatility of your portfolio. If you care only about maximizing return and don't care about volatility, then you don't have to invest in bonds. But you probably actually do care about volatility, even if you don't think you do. You might not care enough to put 25% in bonds, but you might care enough to put 10% in bonds.\"" }, { "docid": "480887", "title": "", "text": "In theory, yes, it makes sense to sell your current bonds in pursuit of higher yields. In practice, there are a lot of smart people out there who own bonds, and the market is very efficient, so you won't see opportunities to trade new bonds for old bonds with better yields from the same issuer. If you do find someone willing to buy your old bond for a higher amount, it probably points to a change in the contract that the new bonds were issued under. (see Argentina for an example)" }, { "docid": "267904", "title": "", "text": "Stock index funds are likely, but not certainly, to be a good long-term investment. In countries other than the USA, there have been 30+ year periods where stocks either underperformed compared to bonds, or even lost value in absolute terms. This suggests that it may be an overgeneralization to assume that they always do well in the long term. Furthermore, it may suggest that they are persistently overvalued for the risk, and perhaps due for a long-term correction. (If everybody assumes they're safe, the equity risk premium is likely to be eaten up.) Putting all of your money into them would, for most people, be taking an unnecessary risk. You should cover some other asset classes too. If stocks do very well, a portfolio with some allocation to more stable assets will still do fairly well. If they crash, a portfolio with less risky assets will have a better chance of being at least adequate." } ]

[ { "docid": "263390", "title": "", "text": "I would suggest looking into Relative Strength Asset Allocation. This type of investment strategy keeps you invested in the best performing asset classes. As a result of investing in this manner it removes the guesswork and moves naturally (say into cash) when the stock market turns down. There is a good whitepaper on this subject by Mebane Faber titled Relative Strength Strategies for Investing." } ]

[ { "docid": "210236", "title": "", "text": "\"I think you're on the right track with that strategy. If you want to learn more about this strategy, I'd recommend \"\"The Intelligent Asset Allocator\"\" by William Bernstein. As for the Über–Tuber portfolio you linked to, my only concern would be that it is diversified in everything except for the short-term bond component, which is 40%. It might be worth looking at some portfolios that have more than one bond allocation -- possibly diversifying more across corporate vs government, and intermediate vs short term. Even the Cheapskate's portfolio located immediately above the Über–Tuber has 20% Corporate and 20% Government. Also note that they mention: Because it includes so many funds, it would be expensive and unwieldy for an account less than $100,000. Regarding your question about the disadvantages of an index-fund-based asset allocation strategy:\"" }, { "docid": "478509", "title": "", "text": "Adding international bonds to an individual investor's portfolio is a controversial subject. On top of the standard risks of bonds you are adding country specific risk, currency risk and diversifying your individual company risk. In theory many of these risks should be rewarded but the data are noisy at best and adding risk like developed currency risk may not be rewarded at all. Also, most of the risk and diversification mentioned above are already added by international stocks. Depending on your home country adding international or emerging market stock etfs only add a few extra bps of fees while international bond etfs can add 30-100bps of fees over their domestic versions. This is a fairly high bar for adding this type of diversification. US bonds for foreign investors are a possible exception to the high fees though the government's bonds yield little. If your home currency (or currency union) does not have a deep bond market and/or bonds make up most of your portfolio it is probably worth diversifying a chunk of your bond exposure internationally. Otherwise, you can get most of the diversification much more cheaply by just using international stocks." }, { "docid": "374225", "title": "", "text": "\"First of all, it's great you're now taking full advantage of your employer match – i.e. free money. Next, on the question of the use of a life cycle / target date fund as a \"\"hedge\"\": Life cycle funds were introduced for hands-off, one-stop-shopping investors who don't like a hassle or don't understand. Such funds are gaining in popularity: employers can use them as a default choice for automatic enrollment, which results in more participation in retirement savings plans than if employees had to opt-in. I think life cycle funds are a good innovation for that reason. But, the added service and convenience typically comes with higher fees. If you are going to be hands-off, make sure you're cost-conscious: Fees can devastate a portfolio's performance. In your case, it sounds like you are willing to do some work for your portfolio. If you are confident that you've chosen a good equity glide path – that is, the initial and final stock/bond allocations and the rebalancing plan to get from one to the other – then you're not going to benefit much by having a life cycle fund in your portfolio duplicating your own effort with inferior components. (I assume you are selecting great low-cost, liquid index funds for your own strategy!) Life cycle are neat, but replicating them isn't rocket science. However, I see a few cases in which life cycle funds may still be useful even if one has made a decision to be more involved in portfolio construction: Similar to your case: You have a company savings plan that you're taking advantage of because of a matching contribution. Chances are your company plan doesn't offer a wide variety of funds. Since a life cycle fund is available, it can be a good choice for that account. But make sure fees aren't out of hand. If much lower-cost equity and bond funds are available, consider them instead. Let's say you had another smaller account that you were unable to consolidate into your main account. (e.g. a Traditional IRA vs. your Roth, and you didn't necessarily want to convert it.) Even if that account had access to a wide variety of funds, it still might not be worth the added hassle or trading costs of owning and rebalancing multiple funds inside the smaller account. There, perhaps, the life cycle fund can help you out, while you use your own strategy in your main account. Finally, let's assume you had a single main account and you buy partially into the idea of a life cycle fund and you find a great one with low fees. Except: you want a bit of something else in your portfolio not provided by the life cycle fund, e.g. some more emerging markets, international, or commodity stock exposure. (Is this one reason you're doing it yourself?) In that case, where the life cycle fund doesn't quite have everything you want, you could still use it for the bulk of the portfolio (e.g. 85-95%) and then select one or two specific additional ETFs to complement it. Just make sure you factor in those additional components into the overall equity weighting and adjust your life cycle fund choice accordingly (e.g. perhaps go more conservative in the life cycle, to compensate.) I hope that helps! Additional References:\"" }, { "docid": "187110", "title": "", "text": "This is a very common misconception. I've been studying equities and credits for a while now, and the simplest way to explain the difference is this: - Credit is about stable cash flows. Your investment in a bond has almost (read: almost) nothing to do with growth rate. It has everything to do with how stable the cash flows are and interest coverage. - Equity is about growth. No wonder companies with highly irregular cash flows (e.g., every single young tech company in the history of tech companies) can have the most in-demand equity while few bond investors would touch them with a ten foot pole." }, { "docid": "13046", "title": "", "text": "In theory, in a perfect world, what you state is almost true. Apart from transaction fees, if you assume that the market is perfectly efficient (ie: public information is immediately reflected in a perfect reflection of future share value, in all share prices when the information becomes available), then in theory any transaction you would choose to take is opposed by a reasonable person who is not taking advantage of you, just moving their position around. This would make any and all transactions completely reasonable from a cost-benefit perspective. ie: if the future value of all dividends to be paid by Apple [ie: the value of holding a share in Apple] exactly matches Apple's share price of $1,000, then buying a share for $1,000 is an even trade. Selling a share for $1,000 is also an even trade. Now in a perfectly efficient market, which we have assumed, then there is no edge to valuing a company using your own methods. If you take Apple's financial statements / press releases / reported information, and if you apply modern financial theory to evaluate the future dividends from Apple, you should get the same $1,000 share price that the market has already arrived at. So in this example, why wouldn't you just throw darts at a printout of the S&P 500 and invest in whatever it lands on? Because, even if the 'perfectly efficient market' agrees on the true value of something, different investments have different characteristics. As an example, consider a simple comparison of corporate bonds: Corporations make bond offerings to the public, allowing individual investors to effectively lend money to the corporation, for a future benefit. For simplicity, assume a bond with a 'face value' (the amount to be repaid to the investor on maturity) of $1,000 has these 3 defining characteristics: (1) The price [What the investor pays to acquire it]; (2) Interest payments [how much, if any, the corporation will pay to the investor before maturity, and when those payments will be made]; and (3) a bond rating [which is a third party assessment of how risky the bond is, based on the 'health' of the corporation]. Now if the bond rating agency is perfect in its risk assessment, and if the price of all bond's is fair, then why does it matter who you loan your money to? It matters because different people want different things out of their investments. If you are waiting to make a down payment on a house next year, then you don't want risk - you want to be certain that you will get your cash back, even if it means lower returns. So, even though a high-risk bond may be perfectly priced, it should only be bought by someone willing to bear that risk. If you are retired, and you need your bonds to pay you interest regularly as your sole source of income, then of course a zero-coupon bond [one that pays no interest] is not helpful to you. If you are young, and have a long time to invest, then you may want risk, because you have time to overcome losses and you want to get the most return possible. In addition, taxes are not universal between all investors. Some people benefit from things that would be tax-heavy to their neighbors. For example in Canada, there is a 'dividend tax credit' which reduces the taxes owing on dividends received by a corporation. This credit exists to prevent 'double-taxation', because otherwise the corporation would pay its ~30% of tax, and then a wealthy investor would pay another ~45% of tax. Due to the mechanics of how the credit is calculated, however, someone who makes less money, gets an even lower tax bill than they normally would. This means that someone making under the top tax bracket in Canada, has a tax benefit by receiving dividends. This means that while 2 stocks may be both fairly priced, if one pays dividends and the other doesn't [ie: if the other company instead reinvests more heavily in future projects, creating even more value for shareholders down the road], then someone in the bottom tax brackets may want the dividend paying stock more than the other. In conclusion: Picking investments yourself does require some knowledge to prevent yourself from making a 'bad buy'; this is because the market is not perfectly efficient. As well, specific market mechanics make some trades more costly than they should be in theory; consider for example transaction fees and tax mechanics. Finally, even if you assume that all of the above is irrelevant as a theoretical idea, different investors still have different needs. Just because $1,000,000 is the 'fair' price for a factory in your home town, doesn't mean you might as well convert your retirement savings to buy it as your sole asset." }, { "docid": "309913", "title": "", "text": "As others have pointed out your bond funds should have short durations, preferably not more than about 2 years. If you are in a bond fund for the long haul meaning you do not have to draw on your bond fund a short time after interest rates have gone up, it is not a big issue. The fund's holdings will eventually turn over into higher interest bearing paper. If bonds do go down, you might want to add more to the fund(s) (see my comment on age-specific asset allocation below). Keep in mind that some stocks are interest sensitive, for example utility stocks which are used as an income source and their dividends compete with rates on CDs which are much safer. Right now CD rates are very low. This could change. It's possible that we may be in an unusually sensitive interest rate period that might have large effects on the stock market, yet to be determined. The reason is that rates have been so low for such a long time that folks that normally would have obtained income streams from bonds have turned to dividend bearing stocks. Some believe that recent market rises are due to such people seeking dividends to enhance cash inflows. If, and emphasis on if, this is true, we could see a sharp drop in the market as sell offs occur as those who want cash streams move from stocks to ultra safe, government insured CDs. Only time will tell if this is going to play out. If retirement for you is 15+ years in the future and the market goes down (bonds or equities), good stuff - it's a buying opportunity in whatever category has dropped. Most important is to keep an eye on your asset allocation and make sure it is appropriate to your age. You did not state the percentages in each category, so further discussion is impossible on that topic. With more than 15 years to go, I personally would be heavily weighted on the equity side, mostly mid-cap and some small equity funds or ETFs in both domestic and international markets. As you age, shuffle some equities into fixed income (bonds, CDs and the like). Work up an asset allocation plan - start thinking about it now. Don't wait." }, { "docid": "599436", "title": "", "text": "\"1. Interest rates What you should know is that the longer the \"\"term\"\" of a bond fund, the more it will be affected by interest rates. So a short-term bond fund will not be subject to large gains or losses due to rate changes, an intermediate-term bond fund will be subject to moderate gains or losses, and a long-term bond fund will be subject to the largest gains or losses. When a book or financial planner says to buy \"\"bonds\"\" with no other qualification, they almost always mean investment-grade intermediate-term bond funds (or for individual bonds, the equivalent would be a bond ladder averaging an intermediate term). If you want technical details, look at the \"\"average duration\"\" or \"\"average maturity\"\" of the bond fund; as a rough guide, if the duration is 10, then a 1% change in interest rates would be a 10% gain or loss on the fund. Another thing you can do is look at long-term (10 years or ideally longer) performance history on some short, intermediate, and long term bond index funds, and you can see how the long term funds bounced around more. Non-investment-grade bonds (aka junk bonds or high yield bonds) are more affected by factors other than interest rates, including some of the same factors (economic booms or recessions) that affect stocks. As a result, they aren't as good for diversifying a portfolio that otherwise consists of stocks. (Having stocks, investment grade bonds, and also a little bit in high-yield bonds can add diversification, though. Just don't replace your bond allocation with high-yield bonds.) A variety of \"\"complicated\"\" bonds exist (convertible bonds are an example) and these are tough to analyze. There are also \"\"floating rate\"\" bonds (bank loan funds), these have minimal interest rate sensitivity because the rate goes up to offset rate rises. These funds still have credit risks, in the credit crisis some of them lost a lot of money. 2. Diversification The purpose of diversification is risk control. Your non-bond funds will outperform in many years, but in other years (say the -37% S&P 500 drop in 2008) they may not. You will not know in advance which year you'll get. You get risk control in at least a few ways. There's also an academic Modern Portfolio Theory explanation for why you should diversify among risky assets (aka stocks), something like: for a given desired risk/return ratio, it's better to leverage up a diverse portfolio than to use a non-diverse portfolio, because risk that can be eliminated through diversification is not compensated by increased returns. The theory also goes that you should choose your diversification between risk assets and the risk-free asset according to your risk tolerance (i.e. select the highest return with tolerable risk). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_portfolio_theory for excruciating detail. The translation of the MPT stuff to practical steps is typically, put as much in stock index funds as you can tolerate over your time horizon, and put the rest in (intermediate-term investment-grade) bond index funds. That's probably what your planner is asking you to do. My personal view, which is not the standard view, is that you should take as much risk as you need to take, not as much as you think you can tolerate: http://blog.ometer.com/2010/11/10/take-risks-in-life-for-savings-choose-a-balanced-fund/ But almost everyone else will say to do the 80/20 if you have decades to retirement and feel you can tolerate the risk, so my view that 60/40 is the max desirable allocation to stocks is not mainstream. Your planner's 80/20 advice is the standard advice. Before doing 100% stocks I'd give you at least a couple cautions: See also:\"" }, { "docid": "5710", "title": "", "text": "\"As Michael Pryor answered, a bond fund is a mutual fund that invests in bonds. I'd also consider an ETF based on bonds to be a bond fund, but I'm not sure that all investors would consider these as \"\"bond funds\"\". Not all bond funds are the same -- just like stock funds. You can classify bond funds based on the issuer of the bonds: You can also classify funds based on the time to maturity: In general, bond funds have lower risk and lower expected return than stock funds. Sometimes bond funds have price movements that are not tightly correlated to the price movements in the equity markets. This can make them a decent hedge against declines in your equity investments. See Michal Pryor's answer for some info on how you can get tax free treatment for your bond fund investments.\"" }, { "docid": "299850", "title": "", "text": "know GIPS, basic portfolio theory / allocation, stocks / bonds. Honestly most of the stuff in private wealth management isn't that complex and banks tend to be ultra conservative, so expect boring work of holding bonds till maturity, SPY's, JNJ's, GE's, JPM's etc." }, { "docid": "409859", "title": "", "text": "Yes, bond funds are marked to market, so they will decline as the composition of their holdings will. Households actually have unimpressive relative levels of credit to equity holdings. The reason why is because there is little return on credit, making it irrational to hold any amount greater than to fund future liquidity needs, risk adjusted and time discounted. The vast majority of credit is held by insurance companies. Pension funds have large stakes as well. Banks hold even fewer bonds since they try to sell them as soon as they've made them. Insurance companies are forced to hold a large percentage of their floats in credit then preferred equity. While this dulls their returns, it's not a large problem for them because they typically hold bonds until maturity. Only the ones who misprice the risk of insurance will have to sell at unfavorable prices. Being able to predict interest rates thus bond prices accurately would make one the best bond manager in the world. While it does look like inflation will rise again soon just as it has during every other US expansion, can it be assured when commodity prices are high in real terms and look like they may be in a collapse? The banking industry would have to produce credit at a much higher rate to counter the deflation of all physical goods. Households typically shun assets at low prices to pursue others at high prices, so their holdings of bonds ETFs should be expected to decline during a bond collapse. If insurance companies find it less costly to hold ETFs then they will contribute to an increase in bond ETF supply." }, { "docid": "481312", "title": "", "text": "\"A bond fund will typically own a range of bonds of various durations, in your specific fund: The fund holds high-quality long-term New York municipal bonds with an average duration of approximately 6–10 years So through this fund you get to own a range of bonds and the fund price will behave similar to you owning the bonds directly. The fund gives you a little diversification in terms of durations and typically a bit more liquidity. It also may continuously buy bonds over time so you get some averaging vs. just buying a bond at a given time and holding it to maturity. This last bit is important, over long durations the bond fund may perform quite differently than owning a bond to maturity due to this ongoing refresh. Another thing to remember is that you're paying management fees for the fund's management. As with any bond investment, the longer the duration the more sensitive the price is to change in interest rates because when interest rates change the price will track it. (i.e. compare a change of 1% for a one year duration vs. 1% yearly over 10 years) If I'm correct, why would anyone in the U.S. buy a long-term bond fund in a market like this one, where interest rates are practically bottomed out? That is the multi-trillion dollar question. Bond prices today reflect what \"\"people\"\" are willing to pay for them. Those \"\"people\"\" include the Federal Reserve which through various programs (QE, Operate Twist etc.) has been forcing the interest rates to where they want to see them. If no one believed the Fed would be able to keep interest rates where they want them then the prices would be different but given that investors know the Fed has access to an infinite supply of money it becomes a more difficult decision to bet against that. (aka \"\"Don't fight the Fed\"\"). My personal belief is that rates will come up but I haven't been able to translate that belief into making money ;-) This question is very complex and has to do not only with US policies and economy but with the status of the US currency in the world and the world economy in general. The other saying that comes to mind in this context is that the market can remain irrational (and it certainly seems to be that) longer than you can remain solvent.\"" }, { "docid": "179664", "title": "", "text": "Private Equity is simply some type of an investment company, which is owned in a way not accessible to the public. ie: Warren Buffet runs Berkshire Hatheway, which is an investment company which itself is traded on the New York Stock Exchange. This means that anyone can buy shares in the company, and own a small fraction of it. If Warren Buffet owned all the shares of Berkshire Hatheway, it would be a Private Equity company. Note that 'Equity' refers to the ownership of the company itself; a private investment company may simply buy Bonds (which are a form of Debt), in which case, they would not be technically considered a 'Private Equity' company. A Hedge Fund is a very broad term which I don't believe has significant meaning. Technically, it means something along the lines of an investment fund (either public or private) which attempts to hedge the risks of its portfolio, by carefully considering what type of investments it purchased. This refers back to the meaning of 'hedge', ie: 'hedging your bets'. In my opinion, 'Hedge Fund' is not meaningfully different from 'investment fund' or other similar terms. It is just the most popular way to refer to this type of industry at the present time. You can see the trend of using the term 'investment fund' vs 'hedge fund' using this link: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=hedge%20fund,investment%20fund Note that the high-point of the use of 'hedge fund' occurred on October 2008, right at the peak of the global financial crisis. The term evokes a certain image of 'high finance' / 'wall-street types' that may exploit various situations (such as tax legislation, or 'secret information') for their own gain. Without a clear definition, however, it is a term without much meaning. If you do a similar comparison between 'hedge fund' and 'private equity', you can see that the two correlate very closely; I believe the term 'private equity' is similarly misused to generally refer to 'investment bankers'. However in that case, 'private equity' has a more clear definition on its own merits." }, { "docid": "87659", "title": "", "text": "\"This effect has much empirical evidence as googling \"\"dividend price effect evidence\"\" will show. As the financial economic schools of thought run the gamut so do the theories. One school goes as far to call it a market inefficiency since the earning power thus the value of an equity that's affected is no different or at least not riskier by the percentage of market capitalization paid. Most papers offer that by the efficient market hypothesis and arbitrage theory, the value of an equity is known by the market at any point in time given by its price, so if an equity pays a dividend, the adjusted price would be efficient since the holder receives no excess of the price instantly before payment as after including the dividend since that dividend information was already discounted so would otherwise produce an arbitrage.\"" }, { "docid": "523949", "title": "", "text": "As a general rule, diversification means carrying sufficient amounts in cash equivalents, stocks, bonds, and real estate. An emergency fund should have six months income (conservative) or expenses (less conservative) in some kind of cash equivalent (like a savings account). As you approach retirement, that number should increase. At retirement, it should be something like five years of expenses. At that time, it is no longer an emergency fund, it's your everyday expenses. You can use a pension or social security to offset your effective monthly expenses for the purpose of that fund. You should five years net expenses after income in cash equivalents after retirement. The normal diversification ratio for stocks, bonds, and real estate is something like 60% stocks, 20% bonds, and 20% real estate. You can count the equity in your house as part of the real estate share. For most people, the house will be sufficient diversification into real estate. That said, you should not buy a second home as an investment. Buy the second home if you can afford it and if it makes you happy. Then consider if you want to keep your first home as an investment or just sell it now. Look at your overall ownership to determine if you are overweighted into real estate. Your primary house is not an investment, but it is an ownership. If 90% of your net worth is real estate, then you are probably underinvested in securities like stocks and bonds. 50% should probably be an upper bound, and 20% real estate would be more diversified. If your 401k has an employer match, you should almost certainly put enough in it to get the full match. I prefer a ratio of 70-75% stocks to 25-30% bonds at all ages. This matches the overall market diversification. Rebalance to stay in that range regularly, possibly by investing in the underweight security. Adding real estate to that, my preference would be for real estate to be roughly a quarter of the value of securities. So around 60% stocks, 20% bonds, and 20% real estate. A 50% share for real estate is more aggressive but can work. Along with a house or rental properties, another option for increasing the real estate share is a Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT). These are essentially a mutual fund for real estate. This takes you out of the business of actively managing properties. If you really want to manage rentals, make sure that you list all the expenses. These include: Also be careful that you are able to handle it if things change. Perhaps today there is a tremendous shortage of rental properties and the vacancy rate is close to zero. What happens in a few years when new construction provides more slack? Some kinds of maintenance can't be done with tenants. Also, some kinds of maintenance will scare away new tenants. So just as you are paying out a large amount of money, you also aren't getting rent. You need to be able to handle the loss of income and the large expense at the same time. Don't forget the sales value of your current house. Perhaps you bought when houses were cheaper. Maybe you'd be better off taking the current equity that you have in that house and putting it into your new house's mortgage. Yes, the old mortgage payment may be lower than the rent you could get, but the rent over the next thirty years might be less than what you could get for the house if you sold it. Are you better off with minimal equity in two houses or good equity with one house? I would feel better about this purchase if you were saying that you were doing this in addition to your 401k. Doing this instead of your 401k seems sketchy to me. What will you do if there is another housing crash? With a little bad luck, you could end up underwater on two mortgages and unable to make payments. Or perhaps not underwater on the current house, but not getting much back on a sale either. All that said, maybe it's a good deal. You have more information about it than we do. Just...be careful." }, { "docid": "30946", "title": "", "text": "\"he is saying that \"\"QE\"\" meaning \"\"quantitative easing\"\" meaning \"\"the theory that the government flooded the markets with money, artificially driving up the price of stocks\"\" meant that hedge funds, which HEDGE, and benefit from an up-and-down market, couldn't win in a market where it just kept going up. It's basically a conspiracy theory bears have been pushing for years \"\"QE artificially inflated the market, it's gonna crash!\"\"\"" }, { "docid": "462384", "title": "", "text": "No. Busts are very infrequent, and if an equity were illiquid enough to be affected, the bust cost would be enormous. For a liquid equity, the amount of busted volume is insignificant except during a flash crash or flash spike. Then it would be reasonable to redownload." }, { "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": "549640", "title": "", "text": "\"A \"\"junk bond\"\" is one that pays a high yield UP FRONT because there is a good chance that it could default. So the higher interest rate is necessary to try to compensate for the default Junk bonds are used in leveraged buyouts (LBOs) because such deals are INHERENTLY risky. \"\"Normal\"\" companies may have 20%-30% debt and the rest equity, so that the company will have to lose 70%-80% of its value before the debtholders start losing money on \"\"normal\"\" bonds. But in an LBO, the company may have only 10%-20% equity and the rest debt. Meaning that if it loses that small equity cushion, the value of the \"\"junk\"\" bonds will be impaired.\"" }, { "docid": "438449", "title": "", "text": "They all basically mean the same thing - a type of debt than can be exchanged for (converted into) equity at some point. It's only the mechanics that can be different. A convertible bond is structured just like a regular bond - it (usually) pays periodic interest and has a face value that's due at maturity. The difference is that the bond holder has the option to exchange the debt for equity at some point during the life of the bond. There can be restrictions on when that conversion is possible, and they typically define a quantity of equity (number of shares) that the bond can be converted into. If the market price of the shares goes above a price that would make the shares more valuable than the bond, it's in the best interest of the bond holder to convert. A convertible note is typically used to describe a kind of startup financing that does not pay interest or have a face value that's redeemed, but instead is redeemed for equity as part of a later financing round. Rather than specifying a specific number of shares, the bond holder receives equity at a certain discount to the rest of the market. So they both are debt instruments that can turn into equity investments, just through different mechanisms. A debenture is a fancy word for unsecured debt, and convertible debt could be used to described either structure above, so those terms could mean either type of structure." } ]

[ { "docid": "431652", "title": "", "text": "I agree, Schwab representatives are easy to reach and very helpful. I also like Vanguard for their low mutual fund fees, so I do my retirement stuff with them, but it took forever to get in touch with a representative just to ask a simple question. Now that they are lowering their rates to 8.95 per trade (effective January 19th), the value for your money is even better." } ]

[ { "docid": "879", "title": "", "text": "Since you are only 16, you still have time to mature what you will do with your life, always keep your mind opend. If you are really passionated about investement : read 1 book every week about investement, read the website investopedia, financial time, know about macro economic be good a math in school, learning coding and infrastructure can also be interesting since the stock is on server. learn about the history, you can watch on yoube shows about the history of money. learn accounting, the basic at least open a broker simulating account online ( you will play with a fake wallet but on real value) for 6 month, and after open a broker account with 100 real dollards and plays the penny stocks ( stock under 3 USD a share). after doing all this for 1 year you should know if you want to spend your life doing this and can choose universtity and intership accordingly. You can look on linkedin the profile of investement banker to know what school they attended. Best of luck for your future." }, { "docid": "322645", "title": "", "text": "There is a measure of protection for investors. It is not the level of protection provided by FDIC or NCUA but it does exist: Securities Investor Protection Corporation What SIPC Protects SIPC protects against the loss of cash and securities – such as stocks and bonds – held by a customer at a financially-troubled SIPC-member brokerage firm. The limit of SIPC protection is $500,000, which includes a $250,000 limit for cash. Most customers of failed brokerage firms when assets are missing from customer accounts are protected. There is no requirement that a customer reside in or be a citizen of the United States. A non-U.S. citizen with an account at a brokerage firm that is a member of SIPC is treated the same as a resident or citizen of the United States with an account at a brokerage firm that is a member of SIPC. SIPC protection is limited. SIPC only protects the custody function of the broker dealer, which means that SIPC works to restore to customers their securities and cash that are in their accounts when the brokerage firm liquidation begins. SIPC does not protect against the decline in value of your securities. SIPC does not protect individuals who are sold worthless stocks and other securities. SIPC does not protect claims against a broker for bad investment advice, or for recommending inappropriate investments. It is important to recognize that SIPC protection is not the same as protection for your cash at a Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) insured banking institution because SIPC does not protect the value of any security. Investments in the stock market are subject to fluctuations in market value. SIPC was not created to protect these risks. That is why SIPC does not bail out investors when the value of their stocks, bonds and other investment falls for any reason. Instead, in a liquidation, SIPC replaces the missing stocks and other securities when it is possible to do so." }, { "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": "581033", "title": "", "text": "If you've been in your house for a few years (and have built some equity up) and the market is active in your area, online is probably fine. The local banks will be better if it's not obvious to someone in Bangor, ME that your neighborhood in San Diego is worth substantially more than the crappy area 2 miles away. I've had 3 mortgages, one from a regional bank, one from a broker-sourced national mortgage company and another from a local bank. The bigger banks had better statements and were easier to do stuff with online. The smaller bank has been a better overall value, because the closing costs were low and they waived some customary fees. In my case, the national mortgage company had a better APR, but my time horizon for staying in the house made the smaller bank (which had a competitive APR, about a half point higher than the lowest advertised) a better value due to much lower up-front costs." }, { "docid": "180592", "title": "", "text": "\"Primerica's primary value proposition is that switching from whole or universal life to term life, and investing the difference is a good idea for most people. However, there are a number of other important factors to consider when purchasing life insurance, and I would also be wary of anyone claiming that one product will be the \"\"best\"\" for you under all circumstances. Best Insurance? Without getting into a much larger discussion on how to pick insurance companies or products, here are a few things that concern me about Primerica: They have a \"\"captive\"\" sales force, meaning their agents sell only Primerica products. This means that they are not shopping around for the best deal for you. Given how much prices on term life have changed in recent years, I would highly recommend taking the time to get alternate quotes online or from an independent broker who will shop around for you. Their staff are primarily part-time employees. I am not saying they are incompetent or don't care, just that you are more likely to be working with someone for whom insurance is not their primary line of work. If you have substantial reason to believe that you may someday need whole life, their products may not suit you well. Primerica does not offer whole life as far as I am aware, which also means that you cannot convert your term life policy through them to whole life should you need to do so. For example, if you experience an accident, are disabled, or have a significant change in your health status in the future and do not have access to a group life policy, you may be unable to renew your individual policy. Above Average Returns? I am also highly skeptical about this claim. The only possible context in which I could find this valid would be if they mean that your returns on average will be better if you invest in the stock market directly as compared to the returns you would get from the \"\"cash value\"\" portion of a life insurance product such as universal life, as those types of products generally have very high fees. Can you clarify if this is the claim that was made, or if they are promising returns above those of the general stock market? If it is the latter, run! Only a handful of superstar investors (think Warren Buffet, Peter Lynch, and Bill Gross) have ever consistently outperformed the stock market as a whole, and typically only for a limited period of time. In either case, I would have the same concerns here as stated in reasons #1 and #2 above. Even more so than with insurance, if you need investment advice, I'd recommend working with someone who is fully dedicated to that type of work, such as a fee-only financial planner (http://www.napfa.org/ is a good place to find one). Once you know how you want to invest, I would again recommend shopping around for a reputable but inexpensive broker and compare their fees with Primerica's. Kudos on having a healthy level of skepticism and listening to your gut. Also, remember that if you are not interested in their offer, you don't have to prove them wrong - you can simply say \"\"no thank you.\"\" Best of luck!\"" }, { "docid": "172336", "title": "", "text": "Instead of saying which one is better, which is too subjective, I think it is more important to understand what these institutions are. They are kind of different animals. Edward Jones pretty much a full service wealth manager. They meet with you in person, advise you on what retirement and savings accounts to get, they talk to you to evaluate your risk preferences. They will talk to you about planning for your kids' college and about your insurance situation. They will probably attend your kids' bar mitzvahs and stuff too. Of course, this isn't free. With Edward Jones you will pay a fixed percentage of your managed wealth to them every year. And they will likely put your money in expensive mutual funds. And those mutual funds will charge a special 12b-1 fee, which is a kickback to the wealth manager. Plan on giving 2% or so of your total wealth to the manager per year, plus whatever the mutual funds charge. I don't have experience with Betterment, but they appear to be a robo advisor. Robo advisors attempt to do the same kinds of things as wealth managers, but rely on computer algorithms and web pages to give you advice whenever possible. This makes some sense because most people aren't actually that special in terms of their financial situation. I don't know their cost structure, but presumably it will be significantly cheaper than Edward Jones. They will almost certainly put you in cheaper funds (index funds and ETF's). Think of it as a cost-conscious alternative to Edward Jones. Vanguard is a discount broker and a mutual fund family. Their funds are among the biggest and cheapest in the world. Fees on many of these funds will be a fraction of the equivalent funds Edward Jones will put you in. They will charge you nothing at all to manage your money. They will give you some assistance and advice if you call them but don't expect any house calls. They aren't particularly in the business of giving advice. If you know what you want to invest in, this is the cheapest way to do it by far. Basically you won't have to pay anything at all except the actual cost of the assets you are investing in. Which is the best? Depends on your own preferences and ability. If you do not want to learn about personal finance and don't particularly care about whether you are getting the best return--if you don't mind paying for a personal touch--Edward Jones might be a good choice. For most people who are comfortable asking this type of question online and interested in learning about finance even a little bit, I'd expect that Betterment or Vanguard will be a better choice. For people who are willing to learn a bit of finance and manage their own affairs, using Vanguard (or a close competitor, like Fidelity) will ultimately result in the most wealth generated (the least given away to the financial industry)." }, { "docid": "276560", "title": "", "text": "\"Remember where they said \"\"Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? That is the essence of this problem. You have freedom including freedom to mess up. On the practical side, it's a matter of structuring your money so it's not available to you for impulse buying, and make it automatic. Have you fully funded your key necessities? You should have an 8-month emergency fund in reserve, in a different savings account. Are you fully maxing out your 401K, 403B, Roth IRA and the like? This single act is so powerful that you're crazy not to - every $1 you save will multiply to $10-100 in retirement. I know a guy who tours the country in an RV with pop-outs and tows a Jeep. He was career Air Force, so clearly not a millionaire; he saved. Money seems so trite to the young, but Seriously. THIS. Have auto-deposits into savings or an investment account. Carry a credit card you are reluctant to use for impulse buys. Make your weekly ATM withdrawal for a fixed amount of cash, and spend only that. When your $100 has to make it through Friday, you think twice about that impulse buy. What about online purchases? Those are a nightmare to manage. If you spend $40 online, reduce your ATM cash withdrawal by $40 the next week, is the best I can think of. Keep in mind, many of these systems are designed to be hard to resist. That's what 1-click ordering is about; they want you to not think about the bill. That's what the \"\"discount codes\"\" are about; those are a fake artifice. Actually they have marked up the regular price so they are only \"\"discounting\"\" to the fair price. You gotta see the scam, unsubscribe and/or tune out. They are preying on you. Get angry about that! Very good people to follow regularly are Suze Orman or Dave Ramsey, depending on your tastes. As for the ontological... freedom is a hard problem. Once food and shelter needs are met, then what? How does a free person deny his own freedom to structure his activities for a loftier goal? Sadly, most people pitching solutions are scammers - churches, gurus, etc. - after your money or your mind. So anyone who is making an effort to get seen by you and promise to help you is probably not a good guy. Though, Napoleon Hill managed to pry some remarkable knowledge from Andrew Carnegie in his book \"\"Think and Grow Rich\"\". Tony Robbins is brilliant, but he lets his staff sell expensive seminars and kit, which make him look like just another shyster. Don't buy that stuff, you don't need it and he doesn't need you to buy it.\"" }, { "docid": "260363", "title": "", "text": "\"You ask a few different, though not unrelated, questions. Everywhere you turn today, you hear people talk about how much they need to save or how important it is to find a good deal on things \"\"in this economy\"\". They use phrases like \"\"now more than ever\"\" and \"\"in these uncertain times\"\". It seems to be a lot of doom and gloom. Some of this is marketing spiel. You may notice that when the economy goes south the number of ads for the cheaper alternatives goes north. (e.g. hair clippers, discount grocery stores, discount just about anything) Truth is, we should always be looking for ways to save money on goods and services we purchase. The question is, what is acceptable to you for your desired lifestyle. (And, is that desired lifestyle reasonable for your income, age and personal situation.) Generally speaking, the harder times are the more we find discounted/cheaper alternatives acceptable. Is there really a good reason that people should be saving more than spending right now? How much you are putting away is a personal matter. I can still remember my dad griping whenever he couldn't save half of his paycheck. That said, putting away half your paycheck may lead to a rather austere lifestyle. This, of course, depends on the size of your paycheck and your desired lifestyle. You could be raking it, living simply and potentially put away more than half your income with relative ease. If you have a stable job, and a decent cash reserve, is it anymore \"\"dangerous\"\" to make a large purchase now than it was seven years ago? Who knows? Honestly, no one. Predicting the future is a fool's errand. (If you are interested in reading more on this view point, I suggest The Black Swan.) You mention the correct approach in this question. Ensure that you have liquid assets (cash or cash equivalents, i.e. money that you can draw on immediately and isn't credit) which covers at least 3-6 months of your necessary expenses (rent/mortgage, bills, car payments, food). (There is no reason that you couldn't try to increase this to 1 year, especially \"\"in this economy.\"\") You should also strive to have money available for emergencies that don't necessarily include loss of income. Of course, make sure you're putting away for retirement, as appropriate for your retirement goals. After that should come discretionary items, including investing, entertainment, the large purchase you mentioned, etc. You should never use money that you may need immediately (5-10 years) for investing. This doesn't necessarily include the large purchase you are contemplating. For example, if you are considering purchasing a home, the down-payment may be one of the items for which you need money in the \"\"immediate\"\" future. Is it really only because of unemployment numbers? This is probably the big one that is the focus of everyone's attention. That said, the human attention span is limited. We have a natural need to simplify things. This is one of the reasons that we tend to focus on a few, hopefully important, things. However, the unemployment numbers are not that the only thing of concern. Credit is still pretty hard to come by these days. The overall economy is still hurting, even if we are technically no longer in a recession. There are also concerns about U.S. government borrowing, consumer spending, recent trucking numbers, etc. (It may not be obvious, but trucking is used as a barometer of economic activity. If there aren't as many trucks carting goods across the country, it probably means that there is less economic activity.) The headline number these days is unemployment, as most census workers have now been returned to the pool. To answer the overall question, we should always be saving money, in good times or in bad. Be that by squeezing more value out of our purchases or by putting some money away. We should always try to reduce our risks, by having an emergency \"\"cash\"\" cushion. We should always be saving for retirement. Truth be told, it is probably more important to put money away in good times, before the hardships hit.\"" }, { "docid": "514383", "title": "", "text": "From the first moment you can access your favourite games online. The GD2 ONE online casino also has weekly promotions and tournaments, which are available to our valued players. Our Player Club program offers the opportunity to increase your winnings. The more you play malaysia best slot game the more prizes you will win. Our promotions offer players a new and exciting challenge every month. Join in on the fun today and take advantage of GD2 ONE exclusive offers. Play in GD2 ONE and you will have access to the best online casino games where you can start playing." }, { "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": "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": "415738", "title": "", "text": "In this case the market interest rate is the discount rate that sets equal the market price (current value) of the bond to its present value. To find the market interest rate which is also referred to as promised yield YTM you would have solve for the interest rate in the bond price formula A market price of bond is the sum of discounted coupons and the terminal value of the bond. Most spreadsheet programs and calculators have a RATE function that makes possible finding this market interest rate. First see this for finding a coupon paying bond price The coupon payments are discounted so is the par value of the bond and sum of such discounts is the market price of the bond. The TVM functions in Excel and calculators make this possible using the following equation Let us take your data, 9% $100,000 coupon with 5 years remaining to maturity with market interest rate of 10%. Bonds issued in the US mostly pay two coupons per year. Thus we are finding the present value of 10 coupons each worth $4500 and par value of $100,000. The semi-annual market interest rate is 10%/2 or 5% The negative sign indicate money going out of hand Now solving for RATE is only possible using numerical methods and the RATE function is programmed using Newton-Raphson method to find one of the roots of the bond price equation. This rate will be the periodic rate in this case semi-annual rate which you have to multiply by 2 to get the annual rate. Do remember there is a difference between annual nominal rate and an annualized effective rate. To find the market interest rate If you don't have Excel or a financial calculator then you may opt to use my version of these financial functions in this JavaScript library tadJS" }, { "docid": "114908", "title": "", "text": "There are many good brokers available in the market and many spammers too. Personally I have been associated with FXCM since 2001 and have never faced any problem. But everyone has their own personal choice and I recommend you to make your own. But the question is how to find out which broker is a good broker and would provide you with a timely and reliable service? Online google check? Not really. There is so much competition between brokerage firms that they keep writing rubbish about each other on blogs and websites. Best thing is to is check with regulator's website. For US: NFA is a regulator for all forex firms. Information about any regulated forex firm could be found here. http://www.nfa.futures.org/basicnet/welcome.aspx For UK: Its FSA. Information on all regulated Uk based firm could be found here. http://www.fsa.gov.uk/register/firmSearchForm.do Remember in many countries its not compulsory for a forex firm to be regulated but being regulated ensure that the govt. has a watch on the operations of the firm. Also most of the firms out there provide accounts for large as well as small traders so there is nothing much to look for even if you are a small trader. Do keep in mind that if you are a US Citizen you are restricted by the US Govt. to trade only with a broker within US. You are not allowed to trade with any brokerage firm that is based outside the country. Forex Trading involves a significant amount of risk make sure you study the markets well and get yourself educated properly before risking your money. While I have made a lot of money trading forex I have seen a lot of people loosing everything. Please understand the risk and please make sure you only trade with the money which you can afford to loose." }, { "docid": "208934", "title": "", "text": "Unless stated otherwise, these terms apply to all bonds. The par value or face value of a bond refers to the value of the bond when it's redeemed at maturity. A bond with a par value of $10,000 simply means that if you purchase the bond and hold it until the maturity date specified in the contract, you receive $10,000. The purchase price, however, is exactly that: it's what you paid for the bond. Bonds may sell below, at, or above par. Continuing the example from above, if you paid $9,800 for a bought a bond with a $10,000 par value, you bought the bond below par. A bond selling below par is said to be selling at a discount. For bonds selling above bar, they're selling at a premium. If the purchase price and the par value are the same, the bond is selling at par. These terms apply to callable bonds only, which are bond contracts that allow the issuer of the bond (in the case of municipal bonds, the institution or agency who created the contract) to buy back from bond holders at a given date (the call date) and at a given price (the call price) before the bond reaches maturity and pays the holder the full par value. Yes, the coupon rate is essentially the interest paid. It's usually represented as a percent of the par value, so if the $10,000 in the example above had a 5% coupon rate, this means that it paid out 0.05 * 10,000 = $500 each year. Usually, this payment is made as two semi-annual payments of $250. Some bonds are zero-coupon bonds, which means exactly what you would think; they don't make any coupon payments. U.S. Treasury Bills are one example of a zero-coupon bond. All of these factors are linked, because the coupon rate, callable provisions, and par value, along with the overall economic environment, can affect the purchase price of a bond." }, { "docid": "192910", "title": "", "text": "This very informative link gives a clear and comprehensive comparison (pros and cons) of various popular brokers: https://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/investing/best-online-brokers-for-stock-trading/ (Best Online Brokers for Stock Trading 2016) There are indeed some significant cons for the super-low commission fee. Just for a quick example, the Interactive Broker requires a minimum of 10k account balance, as well as the frequent trading activity even on monthly basis (or the minimum $10 commission would be charged)." }, { "docid": "583666", "title": "", "text": "Wikipedia has a nice definition of financial literacy (emphasis below is mine): [...] refers to an individual's ability to make informed judgments and effective decisions about the use and management of their money. Raising interest in personal finance is now a focus of state-run programs in countries including Australia, Japan, the United States and the UK. [...] As for how you can become financially literate, here are some suggestions: Learn about how basic financial products works: bank accounts, mortgages, credit cards, investment accounts, insurance (home, car, life, disability, medical.) Free printed & online materials should be available from your existing financial service providers to help you with your existing products. In particular, learn about the fees, interest, or other charges you may incur with these products. Becoming fee-aware is a step towards financial literacy, since financially literate people compare costs. Seek out additional information on each type of product from unbiased sources (i.e. sources not trying to sell you something.) Get out of debt and stay out of debt. This may take a while. Focus on your highest-interest loans first. Learn the difference between good debt and bad debt. Learn about compound interest. Once you understand compound interest, you'll understand why being in debt is bad for your financial well-being. If you aren't already saving money for retirement, start now. Investigate whether your employer offers an advantageous matched 401(k) plan (or group RRSP/DC plan for Canadians) or a pension plan. If your employer offers a good plan, sign up. If you get to choose your own investments, keep it simple and favor low-cost balanced index funds until you understand the different types of investments. Read the material provided by the plan sponsor, try online tools provided, and seek out additional information from unbiased sources. If your employer doesn't offer an advantageous retirement plan, open an individual retirement account or IRA (or personal RRSP for Canadians.) If your employer does offer a plan, you can set one of these up to save even more. You could start with access to a family of low-cost mutual funds (examples: Vanguard for Americans, or TD eFunds for Canadians) or earn advanced credit by learning about discount brokers and self-directed accounts. Understand how income taxes and other taxes work. If you have an accountant prepare your taxes, ask questions. If you prepare your taxes yourself, understand what you're doing and don't file blind. Seek help if necessary. There are many good books on how income tax works. Software packages that help you self-file often have online help worth reading – read it. Learn about life insurance, medical insurance, disability insurance, wills, living wills & powers of attorney, and estate planning. Death and illness can derail your family's finances. Learn how these things can help. Seek out and read key books on personal finance topics. e.g. Your Money Or Your Life, Why Smart People Make Big Money Mistakes, The Four Pillars of Investing, The Random Walk Guide to Investing, and many more. Seek out and read good personal finance blogs. There's a wealth of information available for free on the Internet, but do check facts and assumptions. Here are some suggested blogs for American readers and some suggested blogs for Canadian readers. Subscribe to a personal finance periodical and read it. Good ones to start with are Kiplinger's Personal Finance Magazine in the U.S. and MoneySense Magazine in Canada. The business section in your local newspaper may sometimes have personal finance articles worth reading, too. Shameless plug: Ask more questions on this site. The Personal Finance & Money Stack Exchange is here to help you learn about money & finance, so you can make better financial decisions. We're all here to learn and help others learn about money. Keep learning!" }, { "docid": "540929", "title": "", "text": "Check with you local bank where you have an account. Sometimes they can offer a discount that results in a good rate. I just refinanced a month ago with Bank Of America and their rates were very competitive. What set them aside from the rest was their low closing fees. Otherwise I would shop around on bankrate.com and it will show you results of both local and online mortgage brokers. It will list the rates and expected fees. The also list an average national rate so you can compare the rate you are considering and see if there could be a better deal elsewhere." }, { "docid": "45174", "title": "", "text": "Here's a good strategy: Open up a Roth IRA at a discount-broker, like TD Ameritrade, invest in no-fee ETF's, tracking an Index, with very low expense ratios (look for around .15%) This way, you won't pay brokers fees whenever you buy shares, and shares are cheap enough to buy casually. This is a good way to start. When you learn more about the market, you can check out individual stocks, exploring different market sectors, etc. But you won't regret starting with a good index fund. Also, it's easy to know how well you did. Just listen on the radio or online for how the Dow or S&P did that day/month/year. Your account will mirror these changes!" }, { "docid": "598607", "title": "", "text": "So I want to sell my 100 shares of AAPL to him at a price of 10 or even 1 US Dollar. Is that legal/allowed? Of course. It's your stocks - do with it what you want. if the two persons are not served by a same broker. You'll have to talk to your broker about the technicalities of the transaction. if the person who sell are US citizen and the person who buy are not, and and vice-versa Since you asked specifically about US citizenship, I'll assume you're in the US or the transaction is taking place in the US. Citizenship has nothing to do with it (except may be for economic sanctions against Russians or Iranians that may come into play). What is important is the tax residency status. Such a transfer is essentially a gift, and if you're a US tax resident (which doesn't correlate to your immigration status necessarily) - you'll have to deal with the gift tax consequences on the discount value. For example - you have 100 shares of AAPL which you sold to your friend for $1 each when the fair market value (FMV) was $501. So essentially, the friend got $50,100 value for $100. I.e.: $50K gift. Since this amount is above the annual $14K exemption - you'll have to deal with the gift tax and file gift tax return. There are also consequences for the capital gains tax for both you and your friend. I suggest you talk to a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) about the specifics given your circumstances. If you (or the recipient) are also a foreign citizen/tax resident - then that country's laws also may affect your situation." } ]

[ { "docid": "535317", "title": "", "text": "I am very happy with Charles Schwab. I use both their investing tools and banking tool, but I don't do much investing besides buy more shares a random mutual fund I purchase 4 years ago I did once need to call in about an IRA rollover and I got a person on the phone immediately who answered my questions and followed up as he said he would. It is anecdotal, but I am happy with them." } ]

[ { "docid": "322645", "title": "", "text": "There is a measure of protection for investors. It is not the level of protection provided by FDIC or NCUA but it does exist: Securities Investor Protection Corporation What SIPC Protects SIPC protects against the loss of cash and securities – such as stocks and bonds – held by a customer at a financially-troubled SIPC-member brokerage firm. The limit of SIPC protection is $500,000, which includes a $250,000 limit for cash. Most customers of failed brokerage firms when assets are missing from customer accounts are protected. There is no requirement that a customer reside in or be a citizen of the United States. A non-U.S. citizen with an account at a brokerage firm that is a member of SIPC is treated the same as a resident or citizen of the United States with an account at a brokerage firm that is a member of SIPC. SIPC protection is limited. SIPC only protects the custody function of the broker dealer, which means that SIPC works to restore to customers their securities and cash that are in their accounts when the brokerage firm liquidation begins. SIPC does not protect against the decline in value of your securities. SIPC does not protect individuals who are sold worthless stocks and other securities. SIPC does not protect claims against a broker for bad investment advice, or for recommending inappropriate investments. It is important to recognize that SIPC protection is not the same as protection for your cash at a Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) insured banking institution because SIPC does not protect the value of any security. Investments in the stock market are subject to fluctuations in market value. SIPC was not created to protect these risks. That is why SIPC does not bail out investors when the value of their stocks, bonds and other investment falls for any reason. Instead, in a liquidation, SIPC replaces the missing stocks and other securities when it is possible to do so." }, { "docid": "415738", "title": "", "text": "In this case the market interest rate is the discount rate that sets equal the market price (current value) of the bond to its present value. To find the market interest rate which is also referred to as promised yield YTM you would have solve for the interest rate in the bond price formula A market price of bond is the sum of discounted coupons and the terminal value of the bond. Most spreadsheet programs and calculators have a RATE function that makes possible finding this market interest rate. First see this for finding a coupon paying bond price The coupon payments are discounted so is the par value of the bond and sum of such discounts is the market price of the bond. The TVM functions in Excel and calculators make this possible using the following equation Let us take your data, 9% $100,000 coupon with 5 years remaining to maturity with market interest rate of 10%. Bonds issued in the US mostly pay two coupons per year. Thus we are finding the present value of 10 coupons each worth $4500 and par value of $100,000. The semi-annual market interest rate is 10%/2 or 5% The negative sign indicate money going out of hand Now solving for RATE is only possible using numerical methods and the RATE function is programmed using Newton-Raphson method to find one of the roots of the bond price equation. This rate will be the periodic rate in this case semi-annual rate which you have to multiply by 2 to get the annual rate. Do remember there is a difference between annual nominal rate and an annualized effective rate. To find the market interest rate If you don't have Excel or a financial calculator then you may opt to use my version of these financial functions in this JavaScript library tadJS" }, { "docid": "260363", "title": "", "text": "\"You ask a few different, though not unrelated, questions. Everywhere you turn today, you hear people talk about how much they need to save or how important it is to find a good deal on things \"\"in this economy\"\". They use phrases like \"\"now more than ever\"\" and \"\"in these uncertain times\"\". It seems to be a lot of doom and gloom. Some of this is marketing spiel. You may notice that when the economy goes south the number of ads for the cheaper alternatives goes north. (e.g. hair clippers, discount grocery stores, discount just about anything) Truth is, we should always be looking for ways to save money on goods and services we purchase. The question is, what is acceptable to you for your desired lifestyle. (And, is that desired lifestyle reasonable for your income, age and personal situation.) Generally speaking, the harder times are the more we find discounted/cheaper alternatives acceptable. Is there really a good reason that people should be saving more than spending right now? How much you are putting away is a personal matter. I can still remember my dad griping whenever he couldn't save half of his paycheck. That said, putting away half your paycheck may lead to a rather austere lifestyle. This, of course, depends on the size of your paycheck and your desired lifestyle. You could be raking it, living simply and potentially put away more than half your income with relative ease. If you have a stable job, and a decent cash reserve, is it anymore \"\"dangerous\"\" to make a large purchase now than it was seven years ago? Who knows? Honestly, no one. Predicting the future is a fool's errand. (If you are interested in reading more on this view point, I suggest The Black Swan.) You mention the correct approach in this question. Ensure that you have liquid assets (cash or cash equivalents, i.e. money that you can draw on immediately and isn't credit) which covers at least 3-6 months of your necessary expenses (rent/mortgage, bills, car payments, food). (There is no reason that you couldn't try to increase this to 1 year, especially \"\"in this economy.\"\") You should also strive to have money available for emergencies that don't necessarily include loss of income. Of course, make sure you're putting away for retirement, as appropriate for your retirement goals. After that should come discretionary items, including investing, entertainment, the large purchase you mentioned, etc. You should never use money that you may need immediately (5-10 years) for investing. This doesn't necessarily include the large purchase you are contemplating. For example, if you are considering purchasing a home, the down-payment may be one of the items for which you need money in the \"\"immediate\"\" future. Is it really only because of unemployment numbers? This is probably the big one that is the focus of everyone's attention. That said, the human attention span is limited. We have a natural need to simplify things. This is one of the reasons that we tend to focus on a few, hopefully important, things. However, the unemployment numbers are not that the only thing of concern. Credit is still pretty hard to come by these days. The overall economy is still hurting, even if we are technically no longer in a recession. There are also concerns about U.S. government borrowing, consumer spending, recent trucking numbers, etc. (It may not be obvious, but trucking is used as a barometer of economic activity. If there aren't as many trucks carting goods across the country, it probably means that there is less economic activity.) The headline number these days is unemployment, as most census workers have now been returned to the pool. To answer the overall question, we should always be saving money, in good times or in bad. Be that by squeezing more value out of our purchases or by putting some money away. We should always try to reduce our risks, by having an emergency \"\"cash\"\" cushion. We should always be saving for retirement. Truth be told, it is probably more important to put money away in good times, before the hardships hit.\"" }, { "docid": "583666", "title": "", "text": "Wikipedia has a nice definition of financial literacy (emphasis below is mine): [...] refers to an individual's ability to make informed judgments and effective decisions about the use and management of their money. Raising interest in personal finance is now a focus of state-run programs in countries including Australia, Japan, the United States and the UK. [...] As for how you can become financially literate, here are some suggestions: Learn about how basic financial products works: bank accounts, mortgages, credit cards, investment accounts, insurance (home, car, life, disability, medical.) Free printed & online materials should be available from your existing financial service providers to help you with your existing products. In particular, learn about the fees, interest, or other charges you may incur with these products. Becoming fee-aware is a step towards financial literacy, since financially literate people compare costs. Seek out additional information on each type of product from unbiased sources (i.e. sources not trying to sell you something.) Get out of debt and stay out of debt. This may take a while. Focus on your highest-interest loans first. Learn the difference between good debt and bad debt. Learn about compound interest. Once you understand compound interest, you'll understand why being in debt is bad for your financial well-being. If you aren't already saving money for retirement, start now. Investigate whether your employer offers an advantageous matched 401(k) plan (or group RRSP/DC plan for Canadians) or a pension plan. If your employer offers a good plan, sign up. If you get to choose your own investments, keep it simple and favor low-cost balanced index funds until you understand the different types of investments. Read the material provided by the plan sponsor, try online tools provided, and seek out additional information from unbiased sources. If your employer doesn't offer an advantageous retirement plan, open an individual retirement account or IRA (or personal RRSP for Canadians.) If your employer does offer a plan, you can set one of these up to save even more. You could start with access to a family of low-cost mutual funds (examples: Vanguard for Americans, or TD eFunds for Canadians) or earn advanced credit by learning about discount brokers and self-directed accounts. Understand how income taxes and other taxes work. If you have an accountant prepare your taxes, ask questions. If you prepare your taxes yourself, understand what you're doing and don't file blind. Seek help if necessary. There are many good books on how income tax works. Software packages that help you self-file often have online help worth reading – read it. Learn about life insurance, medical insurance, disability insurance, wills, living wills & powers of attorney, and estate planning. Death and illness can derail your family's finances. Learn how these things can help. Seek out and read key books on personal finance topics. e.g. Your Money Or Your Life, Why Smart People Make Big Money Mistakes, The Four Pillars of Investing, The Random Walk Guide to Investing, and many more. Seek out and read good personal finance blogs. There's a wealth of information available for free on the Internet, but do check facts and assumptions. Here are some suggested blogs for American readers and some suggested blogs for Canadian readers. Subscribe to a personal finance periodical and read it. Good ones to start with are Kiplinger's Personal Finance Magazine in the U.S. and MoneySense Magazine in Canada. The business section in your local newspaper may sometimes have personal finance articles worth reading, too. Shameless plug: Ask more questions on this site. The Personal Finance & Money Stack Exchange is here to help you learn about money & finance, so you can make better financial decisions. We're all here to learn and help others learn about money. Keep learning!" }, { "docid": "134430", "title": "", "text": "When you are placing an order with an online broker you should already know what exchange or exchanges that stock trades on. For example if you look up under Yahoo Finance: Notice how News Corp is traded both on the ASX and the Nasdaq. The difference is the shares traded on the ASX have the extension .AX, that is how you know the difference between them. When you are putting orders in with your online broker you will need to select the exchange you wish your order to go to (if your broker allows trading on multiple exchanges). So you should always know which exchange your order goes to." }, { "docid": "540986", "title": "", "text": "Absolutely. It does highly depend on your country, as US brokerages are stricter with or even closed to residents of countries that produce drugs, launder money, finance terror, have traditional difficulty with the US, etc. It also depends on your country's laws. Some countries have currency controls, restrictions on buying foreign/US securities, etc. That said, some brokerages have offices world-wide, so there might be one near you. If your legal situation as described above is fortunate, some brokers will simply allow you to setup online using a procedure not too different from US residents: provide identification, sign tons of documents. You'll have to have a method to deliver your documentation in the ways you'd expect: mail, fax, email. E*Trade is the best starter broker, right now, imo. Just see how far you can go in the sign-up process." }, { "docid": "293389", "title": "", "text": "\"This is the sad state of US stock markets and Regulation T. Yes, while options have cleared & settled for t+1 (trade +1 day) for years and now actually clear \"\"instantly\"\" on some exchanges, stocks still clear & settle in t+3. There really is no excuse for it. If you are in a margin account, regulations permit the trading of unsettled funds without affecting margin requirements, so your funds in effect are available immediately after trading but aren't considered margin loans. Some strict brokers will even restrict the amount of uncleared margin funds you can trade with (Scottrade used to be hyper safe and was the only online discount broker that did this years ago); others will allow you to withdraw a large percentage of your funds immediately (I think E*Trade lets you withdraw up to 90% of unsettled funds immediately). If you are in a cash account, you are authorized to buy with unsettled funds, but you can't sell purchases made on unsettled funds until such funds clear, or you'll be barred for 90 days from trading as your letter threatened; besides, most brokers don't allow this. You certainly aren't allowed to withdraw unsettled funds (by your broker) in such an account as it would technically constitute a loan for which you aren't even liable since you've agreed to no loan contract, a margin agreement. I can't be sure if that actually violates Reg T, but when I am, I'll edit. While it is true that all marketable options are cleared through one central entity, the Options Clearing Corporation, with stocks, clearing & settling still occurs between brokers, netting their transactions between each other electronically. All financial products could clear & settle immediately imo, and I'd rather not start a firestorm by giving my opinion why not. Don't even get me started on the bond market... As to the actual process, it's called \"\"clearing & settling\"\". The general process (which can generally be applied to all financial instruments from cash deposits to derivatives trading) is: The reason why all of the old financial companies were grouped on Wall St. is because they'd have runners physically carting all of the certificates from building to building. Then, they discovered netting so slowed down the process to balance the accounts and only cart the net amounts of certificates they owed each other. This is how we get the term \"\"bankers hours\"\" where financial firms would close to the public early to account for the days trading. While this is all really done instantly behind your back at your broker, they've conveniently kept the short hours.\"" }, { "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": "155677", "title": "", "text": "That is a loaded question but I'll give it a shot. First things first you need to determine if you are ready to invest in stocks. If you have a lot of high interest debt you would be much better served paying that off before investing in stocks. Stocks return around 8%-10% in the long run, so you'd be better off paying off any debt you have that is higher than 8%-10%. Most people get their start investing in stocks through mutual funds in their 401k or a Roth IRA. If you want to invest in individual stocks instead of mutual funds then you will need to do a lot of reading and learning. You will need a brokerage account or if you have a stock in mind they might have a dividend reinvestment plan (DRIP) that you could invest in directly with the company. You will have to compare the different brokerage firms to determine which is best for you. Since you seem to be internet savvy, I suggest you use a discount brokerage that let's you buy stocks online with cheaper commissions. A good rule of thumb is to keep commissions below 1% of the amount invested. Once you have your online brokerage account open with money in there the process of actually buying the stock is fairly straightforward. Just place an order for the amount of shares you want. That order can be a market order which means the purchase will occur at the current market price. Or you can use a limit order where you control at what price your purchase will occur. There are lots of good books out there for beginners. Personally I learned from the Motley Fool. And last but not least is to have fun with it. Learn as much as you can and welcome to the club." }, { "docid": "149341", "title": "", "text": "\"I'd recommend an online FX broker like XE Trade at xe.com. There are no fees charged by XE other than the spread on the FX conversion itself (which you'll pay anywhere). They have payment clearing facilities in several countries (including UK BACS) so provided you're dealing with a major currency it should be possible to transfer money \"\"free\"\" (of wire charges at least). The FX spread will be much better than you would get from a bank (since FX is their primary business). The additional risk you take on is settlement risk. XE will not pay the sterling amount to your UK bank account until they have received the Euro payment into their account. If XE went bankrupt before crediting your UK account, but after you've paid them your Euros - you could lose your money. XE is backed by Custom House, which is a large and established Canadian firm - so this risk is very small indeed. There are other choices out there too, UKForex is another that comes to mind - although XE's rates have been the best of those I've tried.\"" }, { "docid": "442727", "title": "", "text": "\"Bob should treat both positions as incomplete, and explore a viewpoint which does a better job of separating value from volatility. So we should start by recognizing that what Bob is really doing is trading pieces of paper (say Stocks from Fund #1 or Bonds from Fund #2, to pick historically volatile and non-volatile instruments.*) for pieces of paper (Greenbacks). In the end, this is a trade, and should always be thought of as such. Does Bob value his stocks more than his bonds? Then he should probably draw from Fund #2. If he values his bonds more, he should probably draw from Fund #1. However, both Bob and his financial adviser demonstrate an assumption: that an instrument, whether stock bond or dollar bill, has some intrinsic value (which may raise over time). The issue is whether its perceived value is a good measure of its actual value or not. From this perspective, we can see the stock (Fund #1) as having an actual value that grows quickly (6.5% - 1.85% = 4.65%), and the bond (Fund #2) as having an actual value that grows slower (4.5% - 1.15$ = 3.35$). Now the perceived value of the stocks is highly volatile. The Chairman of the Fed sneezes and a high velocity trader drives a stock up or down at a rate that would give you whiplash. This perspective aligns with the broker's opinion. If the stocks are low, it means their perceived value is artificially low, and selling it would be a mistake because the market is perceiving those pieces of paper as being worth less than they actually are. In this case, Bob wins by keeping the stocks, and selling bonds, because the stocks are perceived as undervalued, and thus are worth keeping until perceptions change. On the other hand, consider the assumption we carefully slid into the argument without any fanfare: the assumption that the actual value of the stock aligns with its historical value. \"\"Past performance does not predict future results.\"\" Its entirely possible that the actual value of the stocks is actually much lower than the historical value, and that it was the perceived value that was artificially higher. It may be continuing to do so... who knows how overvalued the perceived value actually was! In this case, Bob wins by keeping the bonds. In this case, the stocks may have \"\"underperformed\"\" to drive perceptions towards their actual value, and Bob has a great chance to get out from under this market. The reality is somewhere between them. The actual values are moving, and the perceived values are moving, and the world mixes them up enough to make Scratchers lottery tickets look like a decent investment instrument. So what can we do? Bob's broker has a smart idea, he's just not fully explaining it because it is unprofessional to do so. Historically speaking, Bobs who lost a bunch of money in the stock market are poor judges of where the stock market is going next (arguably, you should be talking to the Joes who made a bunch of money. They might have more of a clue.). Humans are emotional beings, and we have an emotional instinct to cut ties when things start to go south. The market preys on emotional thinkers, happily giving them what they want in exchange for taking some of their money. Bob's broker is quoting a well recognized phrase that is a polite way of saying \"\"you are being emotional in your judgement, and here is a phrasing to suggest you should temper that judgement.\"\" Of course the broker may also not know what they're doing! (I've seen arguments that they don't!) Plenty of people listened to their brokers all the way to the great crash of 2008. Brokers are human too, they just put their emotions in different places. So now Bob has no clear voice to listen to. Sounds like a trap! However, there is a solution. Bob should think about more than just simple dollars. Bob should think about the rest of his life, and where he would like the risk to appear. If Bob draws from Fund #1 (liquidating stocks), then Bob has made a choice to realize any losses or gains early... specifically now. He may win, he may lose. However, no matter what, he will have a less volatile portfolio, and thus he can rely on it more in the long run. If Bob draws from Fund #2 (liquidating bonds) instead, then Bob has made a choice not to realize any losses or gains right away. He may win, he may lose. However, whether he wins or loses will not be clear, perhaps until retirement when he needs to draw on that money, and finds Fund #1 is still under-performing, so he has to work a few more years before retirement. There is a magical assumption that the stock market will always continue rewarding risk takers, but no one has quite been able to prove it! Once Bob includes his life perspective in the mix, and doesn't look just at the cold hard dollars on the table, Bob can make a more educated decision. Just to throw more options on the table, Bob might rationally choose to do any one of a number of other options which are not extremes, in order to find a happy medium that best fits Bob's life needs: * I intentionally chose to label Fund #1 as stocks and Fund #2 as bonds, even though this is a terribly crude assumption, because I feel those words have an emotional attachment associated to them which #1 and #2 simply do not. Given that part of the argument is that emotions play a part, it seemed reasonable to dig into underlying emotional biases as part of my wording. Feel free to replace words as you see fit to remove this bias if desired.\"" }, { "docid": "57716", "title": "", "text": "If you don't know how to evaluate funds and are looking for someone to help you make good investment decisions, then you want a financial advisor. My suggestion is to look for one that 1) doesn't try to sell you insurance first (since insurance is an expense, not an investment), 2) can explain to you the the relationship between risk and return (and what mix is right for you) and 3) recommends funds that have good demonstrated returns after fees have been removed. If you plan to pick your own funds and just want a transaction broker, go with one of the free/cheap online discount brokers. Many let you invest in hundreds of different funds, so look for brokers with the cheapest fees." }, { "docid": "320953", "title": "", "text": "Make sure you shop around and ask a lot of places for a good faith estimate. Last I knew, the good faith document is the same everywhere and long form that makes it easy enough to compare the hard numbers from place to place. I have gotten several estimates for various scenarios and I have had them hand written and printed. (I discounted the hand written ones because that broker seemed pretty disorganized in general) Learn the terms online, and start comparing. Use the good faiths as a negotiation tool to get lower rates or lower costs from other brokers. See how accurate the person is at listening to you and filling out the paperwork. See how responsive they are to you when you call with questions and want some changes. Check with at least four places. The more places you shop, the better idea you will have of what fees are high and what interest rates are low. I might pay a higher fee to get a lower interest rate, so there are lots of trade offs to consider." }, { "docid": "94477", "title": "", "text": "Usually, you can buy ETFs through brokerages. I looked at London to see if there's any familiar brokerage names, and it appears that the address below is to Fidelity Investments Worldwide and their site indicates that you can buy securities. Any brokerage, in theory, should allow you to invest in securities. You could always call and ask if they allow you to invest in ETFs. Some brokerages may also allow you to purchase securities in other countries; for instance, some of the firms in the U.S. allow investors to invest in the ETF HK:2801, which is not a U.S. ETF. Many countries have ETF securities available to local and foreign investors. This site appears to help point people to brokers in London. Also, see this answer on this site (a UK investor who's invested in the U.S. through Barclays)." }, { "docid": "303025", "title": "", "text": "Don't buy from them. Fry's Electronics matches all online prices. Just tell a Fry's employee that you saw the cheaper price at Best Buy or on Best Buy's website and they will match it. I don't know why or how this is happening, but Best Buy has some really good deals right now that I used to get discounts at Fry's last week." }, { "docid": "515144", "title": "", "text": "If seeing all of your balances in one place matters that much to you, go to a broker that has an online bank like Schwab, ING or ETrade. If you're not comfortable with online banking, I'd suggest dropping the requirement to see everything on one statement/website. All of the major brokers have easy ways to transfer money to and from their accounts. I have accounts at Schwab and TD Ameritrade, which both offer online transfer via ACH transactions for no fee. It's just like paying a credit card online. Investments are a profit center for banks, you pay a higher cost and the guy who signs you up gets points towards his incentive vacation to the Caribbean." }, { "docid": "360716", "title": "", "text": "\"What you seem to want is a dividend reinvestment plan (DRIP). That's typically offered by the broker, not by the ETF itself. Essentially this is a discounted purchase of new shares when you're dividend comes out. As noted in the answer by JoeTaxpayer, you'll still need to pay tax on the dividend, but that probably won't be a big problem unless you've got a lot of dividends. You'll pay that out of some other funds when it's due. All DRIPs (not just for ETFs) have potential to complicate computation of your tax basis for eventual sale, so be aware of that. It doesn't have to be a show-stopper for you, but it's something to consider before you start. It's probably less of a problem now than it used to be since brokers now have to report your basis on the 1099-B in the year of sale, reducing your administrative burden (if you trust them to get it right). Here's a list of brokerages that were offering this from a top-of-the-search-list article that I found online: Some brokerages, including TD Ameritrade, Vanguard, Scottrade, Schwab and, to a lesser extent, Etrade, offer ETF DRIPs—no-cost dividend reinvestment programs. This is very helpful for busy clients. Other brokerages, such as Fidelity, leave ETF dividend reinvestment to their clients. Source: http://www.etf.com/sections/blog/23595-your-etf-has-drip-drag.html?nopaging=1 Presumably the list is not constant. I almost didn't included but I thought the wide availability (at least as of the time of the article's posting) was more interesting than any specific broker on it. You'll want to do some research before you choose a broker to do this. Compare fees for sure, but also take into account other factors like how soon after the dividend they do the purchase (is it the ex-date, the pay date, or something else?). A quick search online should net you several decent articles with more information. I just searched on \"\"ETF DRIP\"\" to check it out.\"" }, { "docid": "879", "title": "", "text": "Since you are only 16, you still have time to mature what you will do with your life, always keep your mind opend. If you are really passionated about investement : read 1 book every week about investement, read the website investopedia, financial time, know about macro economic be good a math in school, learning coding and infrastructure can also be interesting since the stock is on server. learn about the history, you can watch on yoube shows about the history of money. learn accounting, the basic at least open a broker simulating account online ( you will play with a fake wallet but on real value) for 6 month, and after open a broker account with 100 real dollards and plays the penny stocks ( stock under 3 USD a share). after doing all this for 1 year you should know if you want to spend your life doing this and can choose universtity and intership accordingly. You can look on linkedin the profile of investement banker to know what school they attended. Best of luck for your future." }, { "docid": "447303", "title": "", "text": "For question #1, at least some US-based online brokers do permit direct purchases of stocks on foreign exchanges. Depending on your circumstances, this might be more cost effective than purchasing US-listed ADRs. One such broker is Interactive Brokers, which allows US citizens to directly purchase shares on many different foreign exchanges using their online platform (including in France). For France, I believe their costs are currently 0.1% of the total trade value with a 4€ minimum. I should warn you that the IB platform is not particularly user-friendly, since they market themselves to traders and the learning curve is steep (although accounts are available to individual investors). IB also won't automatically convert currencies for you, so you also need to use their foreign exchange trading interface to acquire the foreign currency used to purchase a foreign stock, which has plusses and minuses. On the plus side, their F/X spread is very competitive, but the interface is, shall we say, not very intuitive. I can't answer question #2 with specific regards to US/France. At least in the case of IB, though, I believe any dividends from a EUR-denominated stock would continue to accumulate in your account in Euros until you decide to convert them to dollars (or you could reinvest in EUR if you so choose)." } ]

[ { "docid": "160218", "title": "", "text": "\"If you have at least $25,000, Wells Fargo is the place to be, as you get 100 free trades per account. I have three investment accounts with them and get 100 free trades in each a year, though I only ever actually use 10-20. i can't vouch for their phone service as I've never needed it, but free is very hard to beat in the \"\"value for money\"\" department. Update: Apparently in some states the requirement is $50,000. However, they count 10% of your mortgage as well as all deposit and investment accounts toward that balance.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "415738", "title": "", "text": "In this case the market interest rate is the discount rate that sets equal the market price (current value) of the bond to its present value. To find the market interest rate which is also referred to as promised yield YTM you would have solve for the interest rate in the bond price formula A market price of bond is the sum of discounted coupons and the terminal value of the bond. Most spreadsheet programs and calculators have a RATE function that makes possible finding this market interest rate. First see this for finding a coupon paying bond price The coupon payments are discounted so is the par value of the bond and sum of such discounts is the market price of the bond. The TVM functions in Excel and calculators make this possible using the following equation Let us take your data, 9% $100,000 coupon with 5 years remaining to maturity with market interest rate of 10%. Bonds issued in the US mostly pay two coupons per year. Thus we are finding the present value of 10 coupons each worth $4500 and par value of $100,000. The semi-annual market interest rate is 10%/2 or 5% The negative sign indicate money going out of hand Now solving for RATE is only possible using numerical methods and the RATE function is programmed using Newton-Raphson method to find one of the roots of the bond price equation. This rate will be the periodic rate in this case semi-annual rate which you have to multiply by 2 to get the annual rate. Do remember there is a difference between annual nominal rate and an annualized effective rate. To find the market interest rate If you don't have Excel or a financial calculator then you may opt to use my version of these financial functions in this JavaScript library tadJS" }, { "docid": "381341", "title": "", "text": "\"Banks often offer cash to people who open savings accounts in order to drive new business. Their gain is pretty much as you think, to grow their asset base. A survey released in 2008 by UK-based Age Concern declared that only 16% of the British population have ever switched their banks‚ while 45% of marriages now end in divorce. Yip, till death do most part. In the US, similar analysis is pointing to a decline in people moving banks from the typical rate of 15% annually. If people are unwilling to change banks then how much more difficult for online brokers to get customers to switch? TD Ameritrade is offering you 30 days commission-free and some cash (0.2% - 0.4% depending on the funds you invest). Most people - especially those who use the opportunity to buy and hold - won't make much money for them, but it only takes a few more aggressive traders for them to gain overall. For financial institutions the question is straightforward: how much must they pay you to overcome your switching cost of changing institutions? If that number is sufficiently smaller than what they feel they can make in profits on having your business then they will pay. EDIT TO ELABORATE: The mechanism by which any financial institution makes money by offering cash to customers is essentially one of the \"\"law of large numbers\"\". If all you did is transfer in, say, $100,000, buy an ETF within the 30-day window (or any of the ongoing commission-free ones) and hold, then sell after a few years, they will probably lose money on you. I imagine they expect that on a large number of people taking advantage of this offer. Credit card companies are no different. More than half of people pay their monthly credit balance without incurring any interest charges. They get 30 days of credit for free. Everyone else makes the company a fortune. TD Ameritrade's fees are quite comprehensive outside of this special offer. Besides transactional commissions, their value-added services include subscription fees, administration fees, transaction fees, a few extra-special value-added services and, then, when you wish to cash out and realise your returns, an outbound transfer fee. However, you're a captured market. Since most people won't change their online brokers any more often than they'd change their bank, TD Ameritrade will be looking to offer you all sorts of new services and take commission on all of it. At most they spend $500-$600 to get you as a customer, or, to get you to transfer a lot more cash into their funds. And they get to keep you for how long? Ten years, maybe more? You think they might be able to sell you a few big-ticket items in the interim? Maybe interest you in some subscription service? This isn't grocery shopping. They can afford to think long-term.\"" }, { "docid": "879", "title": "", "text": "Since you are only 16, you still have time to mature what you will do with your life, always keep your mind opend. If you are really passionated about investement : read 1 book every week about investement, read the website investopedia, financial time, know about macro economic be good a math in school, learning coding and infrastructure can also be interesting since the stock is on server. learn about the history, you can watch on yoube shows about the history of money. learn accounting, the basic at least open a broker simulating account online ( you will play with a fake wallet but on real value) for 6 month, and after open a broker account with 100 real dollards and plays the penny stocks ( stock under 3 USD a share). after doing all this for 1 year you should know if you want to spend your life doing this and can choose universtity and intership accordingly. You can look on linkedin the profile of investement banker to know what school they attended. Best of luck for your future." }, { "docid": "319992", "title": "", "text": "For most of the people who are involved in the activity of investing in online stock trading, there will be the need of online brokers. With the investments in the online trades, people will be required to put their stock accounts in a particular platform. To know more about the best online brokers for stock trading, log on to http://www.stocktipsblog.com/" }, { "docid": "508597", "title": "", "text": "That price is the post-tender price, which already reflects arbitrage. It's less than $65 on the market because that's the highest offer out there and the market price reflects the risk that the $65 will not be paid. It also reflects the time value of money until the cash is disbursed (including blows to liquidity). In other words, you are buying the stock burdened with the risk that it might rapidly deflate if the deal falls through (or gets revived at a lower price) or that your money might be better spent somewhere other than waiting for the i-bank to release the tender offer amount to you. Two months ago JOSB traded around $55, and four months ago it traded around $50. If the deal fails, then you could be stuck either taking a big loss to get out of the stock or waiting months (or longer) in the hope that another deal will come along and pay $65 (which may leave you with NPV loss from today). The market seems to think that risk is pretty small, but it's still there. If the payout is $65, then you get a discount for time value and a discount for failed-merger risk. That means the price is less than $65. You can still make money on it, if the merger goes through. Some investors believe they have a better way to make money, and no doubt the tender offer of the incipient merger of two publicly traded companies is already heavily arbitraged. But that said, it may still pay off. Tender offer arbitrage is discussed in this article." }, { "docid": "308964", "title": "", "text": "\"I think you're right that these sites look so unprofessional that they aren't likely to be legitimate. However, even a very legitimate-looking site might be a fake designed to separate you from your money. There is an entire underground industry devoted to this kind of fakery and some of them are adept at what they do. So how can you tell? One place that you can consult is FINRA's BrokerCheck online service. This might be the first of many checks you should undertake. Who is FINRA, you might ask? \"\"The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) is the largest independent regulator for all securities firms doing business in the United States.\"\" See here. My unprofessional guess is, even if a firm's line of business is to broker deals in private company shares, that if they're located in the U.S. or else dealing in U.S. securities then they'd still need to be registered with FINRA – note the \"\"all securities firms\"\" above. I was able to search BrokerCheck and find SecondMarket (the firm @duffbeer703 mentioned) listed as \"\"Active\"\" in the FINRA database. The entry also provides some information about the firm. For instance, SecondMarket appears to also be registered with the S.E.C.. You should also note that SecondMarket links back to these authorities (refer to the footer of their site): \"\"Member FINRA | MSRB | SIPC. Registered with the SEC as an alternative trading system for trading in private company shares. SEC 606 Info [...]\"\" Any legitimate broker would want you to look them up with the authorities if you're unsure about their legitimacy. However, to undertake any such kind of deal, I'd still suggest more due diligence. An accredited investor with serious money to invest ought to, if they are not already experts themselves on these things, hire a professional who is expert to provide counsel, help navigate the system, and avoid the frauds.\"" }, { "docid": "192910", "title": "", "text": "This very informative link gives a clear and comprehensive comparison (pros and cons) of various popular brokers: https://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/investing/best-online-brokers-for-stock-trading/ (Best Online Brokers for Stock Trading 2016) There are indeed some significant cons for the super-low commission fee. Just for a quick example, the Interactive Broker requires a minimum of 10k account balance, as well as the frequent trading activity even on monthly basis (or the minimum $10 commission would be charged)." }, { "docid": "134430", "title": "", "text": "When you are placing an order with an online broker you should already know what exchange or exchanges that stock trades on. For example if you look up under Yahoo Finance: Notice how News Corp is traded both on the ASX and the Nasdaq. The difference is the shares traded on the ASX have the extension .AX, that is how you know the difference between them. When you are putting orders in with your online broker you will need to select the exchange you wish your order to go to (if your broker allows trading on multiple exchanges). So you should always know which exchange your order goes to." }, { "docid": "57716", "title": "", "text": "If you don't know how to evaluate funds and are looking for someone to help you make good investment decisions, then you want a financial advisor. My suggestion is to look for one that 1) doesn't try to sell you insurance first (since insurance is an expense, not an investment), 2) can explain to you the the relationship between risk and return (and what mix is right for you) and 3) recommends funds that have good demonstrated returns after fees have been removed. If you plan to pick your own funds and just want a transaction broker, go with one of the free/cheap online discount brokers. Many let you invest in hundreds of different funds, so look for brokers with the cheapest fees." }, { "docid": "231181", "title": "", "text": "\"I don't know whether you'd consider buying a single bond instead of a fund. Strips are Treasuries where the coupons have been \"\"stripped\"\" to produce debt instruments with a fixed maturity date. They pay zero interest. Their value comes from the fact that you buy them at a price less than 100 and they are worth exactly 100 at some point in the future. You can buy them with any year/month that you wish. They are backed by the federal government and are considered to have no default risk. Like most bonds the price is actually a percentage and they mature at a 100. The one that expires 9/30/2018 costs 91.60 and returns 100 on the expiration date. The price list is here There's more information about them here First of all, they are still T-bonds (in all but the most legalistic sense) which means they are the safest, most risk-free investment possible. The U.S. federal government has stellar credit and a record of never defaulting. These bonds have no call features, so the timing and distribution of bond payments cannot be altered by any foreseeable occurrence. They are sold at a known - and generally deep - discount off a known face value that can be redeemed at a known date, so buyers know exactly how much they will earn from an investment in STRIPS.\"" }, { "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": "360716", "title": "", "text": "\"What you seem to want is a dividend reinvestment plan (DRIP). That's typically offered by the broker, not by the ETF itself. Essentially this is a discounted purchase of new shares when you're dividend comes out. As noted in the answer by JoeTaxpayer, you'll still need to pay tax on the dividend, but that probably won't be a big problem unless you've got a lot of dividends. You'll pay that out of some other funds when it's due. All DRIPs (not just for ETFs) have potential to complicate computation of your tax basis for eventual sale, so be aware of that. It doesn't have to be a show-stopper for you, but it's something to consider before you start. It's probably less of a problem now than it used to be since brokers now have to report your basis on the 1099-B in the year of sale, reducing your administrative burden (if you trust them to get it right). Here's a list of brokerages that were offering this from a top-of-the-search-list article that I found online: Some brokerages, including TD Ameritrade, Vanguard, Scottrade, Schwab and, to a lesser extent, Etrade, offer ETF DRIPs—no-cost dividend reinvestment programs. This is very helpful for busy clients. Other brokerages, such as Fidelity, leave ETF dividend reinvestment to their clients. Source: http://www.etf.com/sections/blog/23595-your-etf-has-drip-drag.html?nopaging=1 Presumably the list is not constant. I almost didn't included but I thought the wide availability (at least as of the time of the article's posting) was more interesting than any specific broker on it. You'll want to do some research before you choose a broker to do this. Compare fees for sure, but also take into account other factors like how soon after the dividend they do the purchase (is it the ex-date, the pay date, or something else?). A quick search online should net you several decent articles with more information. I just searched on \"\"ETF DRIP\"\" to check it out.\"" }, { "docid": "293389", "title": "", "text": "\"This is the sad state of US stock markets and Regulation T. Yes, while options have cleared & settled for t+1 (trade +1 day) for years and now actually clear \"\"instantly\"\" on some exchanges, stocks still clear & settle in t+3. There really is no excuse for it. If you are in a margin account, regulations permit the trading of unsettled funds without affecting margin requirements, so your funds in effect are available immediately after trading but aren't considered margin loans. Some strict brokers will even restrict the amount of uncleared margin funds you can trade with (Scottrade used to be hyper safe and was the only online discount broker that did this years ago); others will allow you to withdraw a large percentage of your funds immediately (I think E*Trade lets you withdraw up to 90% of unsettled funds immediately). If you are in a cash account, you are authorized to buy with unsettled funds, but you can't sell purchases made on unsettled funds until such funds clear, or you'll be barred for 90 days from trading as your letter threatened; besides, most brokers don't allow this. You certainly aren't allowed to withdraw unsettled funds (by your broker) in such an account as it would technically constitute a loan for which you aren't even liable since you've agreed to no loan contract, a margin agreement. I can't be sure if that actually violates Reg T, but when I am, I'll edit. While it is true that all marketable options are cleared through one central entity, the Options Clearing Corporation, with stocks, clearing & settling still occurs between brokers, netting their transactions between each other electronically. All financial products could clear & settle immediately imo, and I'd rather not start a firestorm by giving my opinion why not. Don't even get me started on the bond market... As to the actual process, it's called \"\"clearing & settling\"\". The general process (which can generally be applied to all financial instruments from cash deposits to derivatives trading) is: The reason why all of the old financial companies were grouped on Wall St. is because they'd have runners physically carting all of the certificates from building to building. Then, they discovered netting so slowed down the process to balance the accounts and only cart the net amounts of certificates they owed each other. This is how we get the term \"\"bankers hours\"\" where financial firms would close to the public early to account for the days trading. While this is all really done instantly behind your back at your broker, they've conveniently kept the short hours.\"" }, { "docid": "540986", "title": "", "text": "Absolutely. It does highly depend on your country, as US brokerages are stricter with or even closed to residents of countries that produce drugs, launder money, finance terror, have traditional difficulty with the US, etc. It also depends on your country's laws. Some countries have currency controls, restrictions on buying foreign/US securities, etc. That said, some brokerages have offices world-wide, so there might be one near you. If your legal situation as described above is fortunate, some brokers will simply allow you to setup online using a procedure not too different from US residents: provide identification, sign tons of documents. You'll have to have a method to deliver your documentation in the ways you'd expect: mail, fax, email. E*Trade is the best starter broker, right now, imo. Just see how far you can go in the sign-up process." }, { "docid": "118663", "title": "", "text": "\"OK, I found this filing by JCI on the SEC website: U.S. Federal Income Tax Consequences of the Distribution to U.S. Holders For U.S. federal income tax purposes, the distribution will not be eligible for treatment as a tax-free distribution by Johnson Controls with respect to its stock. Accordingly, the distribution will be treated as a taxable distribution by Johnson Controls to each Johnson Controls shareholder in an amount equal to the fair market value of the Adient ordinary shares received by such shareholder (including any fractional shares deemed received and any Adient ordinary shares withheld on account of any Irish withholding taxes), determined as of the distribution date (such amount, the \"\"Distribution Amount\"\"). The Distribution Amount received by a U.S. holder will be treated as a taxable dividend to the extent of such U.S. holder's ratable share of current or accumulated earnings and profits of Johnson Controls for the taxable year of the distribution (as determined under U.S. federal income tax principles). Any portion of the Distribution Amount that is treated as a dividend will not be eligible for the dividends-received deduction allowed to corporations under the Code. My broker's 1099-B form tells me that I received a Qualified Dividend from JCI on 10/31/2016 of $512.44, which would be equivalent to $45.349 valuation of ADNT as of the spinoff date for my 11.3 shares (before the 0.3 shares were sold as cash-in-lieu) .\"" }, { "docid": "241135", "title": "", "text": "Yes, you often can buy stocks directly from the company at little or no transaction cost. Many companies have either a Dividend Reinvestment Plan (DRIP) or a Direct Stock Plan (DSP). With these plans, you purchase shares directly from the company (although, often there is a third party transfer agent that handles the transaction), and the stock is issued in your name. This differs from purchasing stock from a broker, where the stock normally remains in the name of the broker. Generally, in order to begin participating in a DRIP, you need to already be a registered stockholder. This means that you need to purchase your first share of stock outside of the DRIP, and get it in your name. After that, you can register with the DRIP and purchase additional shares directly from the company. If the company has a DSP, you can begin purchasing shares directly without first being a stockholder. With the advent of discount brokers, DRIPs do not save as much money for regular investors as they once did. However, they can still sometimes save money for someone who wants to purchase shares on a regular basis over even a discount broker. If you are interested in DRIPs and DSPs and want to learn more, there is an informative website at dripinvesting.org that has lots of information on which DRIPs are available and how to get started." }, { "docid": "598607", "title": "", "text": "So I want to sell my 100 shares of AAPL to him at a price of 10 or even 1 US Dollar. Is that legal/allowed? Of course. It's your stocks - do with it what you want. if the two persons are not served by a same broker. You'll have to talk to your broker about the technicalities of the transaction. if the person who sell are US citizen and the person who buy are not, and and vice-versa Since you asked specifically about US citizenship, I'll assume you're in the US or the transaction is taking place in the US. Citizenship has nothing to do with it (except may be for economic sanctions against Russians or Iranians that may come into play). What is important is the tax residency status. Such a transfer is essentially a gift, and if you're a US tax resident (which doesn't correlate to your immigration status necessarily) - you'll have to deal with the gift tax consequences on the discount value. For example - you have 100 shares of AAPL which you sold to your friend for $1 each when the fair market value (FMV) was $501. So essentially, the friend got $50,100 value for $100. I.e.: $50K gift. Since this amount is above the annual $14K exemption - you'll have to deal with the gift tax and file gift tax return. There are also consequences for the capital gains tax for both you and your friend. I suggest you talk to a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) about the specifics given your circumstances. If you (or the recipient) are also a foreign citizen/tax resident - then that country's laws also may affect your situation." }, { "docid": "244097", "title": "", "text": "\"Bank accounts are free, as are discount brokerage accounts (for stuff like IRA's). Any time you think there might be an advantage to getting another one, go ahead and do so. I have a number of bank accounts. Whichever has the best interest rate (typically an online bank) gets the bulk of my cash savings, whichever has the closest ATM gets as much money as I think I might want to withdraw, and I often have a bank account from which my credit cards are paid. Other banks have a token \"\"just in case I move\"\" amount of money. The only cost is that you have to check them from time to time to make sure each account has enough for its likely uses. I use mint.com for that.\"" }, { "docid": "235015", "title": "", "text": "\"Real-time equity (or any other market) data is not available for free anywhere in the US. It is always delayed by 10-15 minutes. On the other hand, online brokers who target the \"\"day trader\"\" (Interactive Brokers, TD Ameritrade, etc.) offer much closer to real-time data AND feature all the tools/alerts/charts/etc. you could ever possibly dream of. I bet the type of alert you're asking for is available with just a couple of clicks on one of these brokers' platforms. Of course, accounts with these online brokers are not free; you must pay for these sophisticated tools and fast market access. Another down side is that the data feeds sent to you by even the most sophisticated online broker are still delayed by tens of seconds compared to the data feeds used by big banks and professional investors. Not to mention that the investment arm of the broker you use will be making its own trades based on the data feeds before relaying them on to you. So this begs the question: why do you need real-time information? Are you trying to \"\"day trade\"\" -- i.e. profit from minute-to-minute fluctuations in the stock market? (I can't in good conscience recommend that, but best of luck to you.) If on the other hand you don't truly need \"\"real-time\"\" data for your application, then I support @ChrisDegnen's approach -- use public data feeds and write your own software. You probably will not find any free tools for the sort of alerting you're looking for because most folks who want these types of alerts also need faster feeds and are therefore already using an online broker's tools.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "544576", "title": "", "text": "\"I've never used them myself, but Scottrade might be something for you to look at. They do $7 internet trades, but also offer $27 broker assisted trades (that's for stocks, in both cases). Plus, they have brick-and-morter storefronts all over the US for that extra \"\"I gotta have a human touch\"\". :-) Also, they do have after hours trading, for the same commission as regular trading.\"" } ]

[ { "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": "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": "322645", "title": "", "text": "There is a measure of protection for investors. It is not the level of protection provided by FDIC or NCUA but it does exist: Securities Investor Protection Corporation What SIPC Protects SIPC protects against the loss of cash and securities – such as stocks and bonds – held by a customer at a financially-troubled SIPC-member brokerage firm. The limit of SIPC protection is $500,000, which includes a $250,000 limit for cash. Most customers of failed brokerage firms when assets are missing from customer accounts are protected. There is no requirement that a customer reside in or be a citizen of the United States. A non-U.S. citizen with an account at a brokerage firm that is a member of SIPC is treated the same as a resident or citizen of the United States with an account at a brokerage firm that is a member of SIPC. SIPC protection is limited. SIPC only protects the custody function of the broker dealer, which means that SIPC works to restore to customers their securities and cash that are in their accounts when the brokerage firm liquidation begins. SIPC does not protect against the decline in value of your securities. SIPC does not protect individuals who are sold worthless stocks and other securities. SIPC does not protect claims against a broker for bad investment advice, or for recommending inappropriate investments. It is important to recognize that SIPC protection is not the same as protection for your cash at a Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) insured banking institution because SIPC does not protect the value of any security. Investments in the stock market are subject to fluctuations in market value. SIPC was not created to protect these risks. That is why SIPC does not bail out investors when the value of their stocks, bonds and other investment falls for any reason. Instead, in a liquidation, SIPC replaces the missing stocks and other securities when it is possible to do so." }, { "docid": "422477", "title": "", "text": "\"As you've observed, when you're dealing with that amount of money, you're going to have to give up FDIC guarantees. That means that keeping the money in a bank account carries some risk with it: if that particular bank goes bust, you could lose most of your money. There are a few options to stretch the FDIC limit such as CDARS, but likely can't handle your hypothetical $800 million. So, what's a lucky winner to do? There are a few options, including treasury securities, money market funds, and more general capital investments such as stocks and bonds. Which one(s) are best depend on what your goals are, and what kind of risks you find acceptable. Money in the bank has two defining characteristics: its value is very stable, and it is liquid (meaning you can spend it very easily, whenever you want, without incurring costs). Treasury securities and money market funds each focus on one of these characteristics. A treasury security is a piece of paper (or really, an electronic record) saying that the US Federal Government owes you money and when they will pay it back. They are very secure in that the government has never missed a payment, and will move heaven and earth to make sure they won't miss one in the future (even taking into account recent political history). You can buy and sell them on an open market, either through a broker or directly on the Treasury's website. The major downside of these compared to a bank account is that they're not as liquid as cash: you own specific amounts of specific kinds of securities, not just some number of dollars in an account. The government will pay you guaranteed cash on specified dates; if you need cash on different dates, you will need to sell the securities in the open market and the price will be subject to market fluctuations. The other \"\"cash-like\"\" option is money market funds. These are a type of mutual fund offered by financial companies. These funds take your money and spread it out over a wide variety of very low risk, very short term investments, with the goal of ensuring that the full value will never go down and is available at any time. They are very liquid: you can typically transfer cash quickly and easily to a normal bank account, write checks directly, and sometimes even use \"\"online bill pay\"\"-like features. They have a very good track record for stability, too, but no one is guaranteeing them against something going terribly wrong. They are lower risk than a (non-FDIC-insured) bank account, since the investments are spread out across many institutions. Beyond those two somewhat \"\"cash-like\"\" options, there are of course other, more general investments such as stocks, bonds, and real estate. These other options trade away some degree of stability, liquidity, or both, in exchange for better expected returns.\"" }, { "docid": "134430", "title": "", "text": "When you are placing an order with an online broker you should already know what exchange or exchanges that stock trades on. For example if you look up under Yahoo Finance: Notice how News Corp is traded both on the ASX and the Nasdaq. The difference is the shares traded on the ASX have the extension .AX, that is how you know the difference between them. When you are putting orders in with your online broker you will need to select the exchange you wish your order to go to (if your broker allows trading on multiple exchanges). So you should always know which exchange your order goes to." }, { "docid": "540986", "title": "", "text": "Absolutely. It does highly depend on your country, as US brokerages are stricter with or even closed to residents of countries that produce drugs, launder money, finance terror, have traditional difficulty with the US, etc. It also depends on your country's laws. Some countries have currency controls, restrictions on buying foreign/US securities, etc. That said, some brokerages have offices world-wide, so there might be one near you. If your legal situation as described above is fortunate, some brokers will simply allow you to setup online using a procedure not too different from US residents: provide identification, sign tons of documents. You'll have to have a method to deliver your documentation in the ways you'd expect: mail, fax, email. E*Trade is the best starter broker, right now, imo. Just see how far you can go in the sign-up process." }, { "docid": "320953", "title": "", "text": "Make sure you shop around and ask a lot of places for a good faith estimate. Last I knew, the good faith document is the same everywhere and long form that makes it easy enough to compare the hard numbers from place to place. I have gotten several estimates for various scenarios and I have had them hand written and printed. (I discounted the hand written ones because that broker seemed pretty disorganized in general) Learn the terms online, and start comparing. Use the good faiths as a negotiation tool to get lower rates or lower costs from other brokers. See how accurate the person is at listening to you and filling out the paperwork. See how responsive they are to you when you call with questions and want some changes. Check with at least four places. The more places you shop, the better idea you will have of what fees are high and what interest rates are low. I might pay a higher fee to get a lower interest rate, so there are lots of trade offs to consider." }, { "docid": "379445", "title": "", "text": "\"The fundamental concept of the time value of money is that money now is worth more than the same amount of money later, because of what you can do with money between now and later. If I gave you a choice between $1000 right now and $1000 in six months, if you had any sense whatsoever you would ask for the money now. That's because, in the six months, you could use the thousand dollars in ways that would improve your net worth between now and six months from now; paying down debt, making investments in your home or business, saving for retirement by investing in interest-bearing instruments like stocks, bonds, mutual funds, etc. There's absolutely no advantage and every disadvantage to waiting 6 months to receive the same amount of money that you could get now. However, if I gave you a choice between $1000 now and $1100 in six months, that might be a harder question; you will get more money later, so the question becomes, how much can you improve your net worth in six months given $1000 now? If it's more than $100, you still want the money now, but if nothing you can do will make more than $100, or if there is a high element of risk to what you can do that will make $100 that might in fact cause you to lose money, then you might take the increased, guaranteed money later. There are two fundamental formulas used to calculate the time value of money; the \"\"future value\"\" and the \"\"present value\"\" formulas. They're basically the same formula, rearranged to solve for different values. The future value formula answers the question, \"\"how much money will I have if I invest a certain amount now, at a given rate of return, for a specified time\"\"?. The formula is FV = PV * (1+R)N, where FV is the future value (how much you'll have later), PV is the present value (how much you'll have now), R is the periodic rate of return (the percentage that your money will grow in each unit period of time, say a month or a year), and N is the number of unit periods of time in the overall time span. Now, you asked what \"\"compounding\"\" is. The theory is very simple; if you put an amount of money (the \"\"principal\"\") into an investment that pays you a rate of return (interest), and don't touch the account (in effect reinvesting the interest you earn in the account back into the same account), then after the first period during which interest is calculated and paid, you'll earn interest on not just the original principal, but the amount of interest already earned. This allows your future value to grow faster than if you were paid \"\"simple interest\"\", where interest is only ever paid on the principal (for instance, if you withdrew the amount of interest you earned each time it was paid). That's accounted for in the future value formula using the exponent term; if you're earning 8% a year on your investment, then after 1 year you'll have 108% of your original investment, then after two years you'll have 1.082 = 116.64% (instead of just 116% which you'd get with simple interest). That .64% advantage to compounding doesn't sound like much of an advantage, but stay tuned; after ten years you'll have 215.89% (instead of 180%) of your original investment, after 20 you'll have 466.10% (instead of 260%) and after 30 your money will have grown by over 1000% as opposed to a measly 340% you'd get with simple interest. The present value formula is based on the same fundamental formula, but it's \"\"solved\"\" for the PV term and assumes you'll know the FV amount. The present value formula answers questions like \"\"how much money would I have to invest now in order to have X dollars at a specific future time?\"\". That formula is PV = FV / (1+R)N where all the terms mean the same thing, except that R in this form is typically called the \"\"discount rate\"\", because its purpose here is to lower (discount) a future amount of money to show what it's worth to you now. Now, the discount rate (or yield rate) used in these calculations isn't always the actual yield rate that the investment promises or has been shown to have over time. Investors will calculate the discount rate for a stock or other investment based on the risks they see in the company's financial numbers or in the market as a whole. The models used by professional investors to quantify risk are rather complex (the people who come up with them for the big investment banks are called \"\"quants\"\", and the typical quant graduates with an advanced math degree and is hired out of college with a six-figure salary), but it's typically enough for the average investor to understand that there is an inherent risk in any investment, and the longer the time period, the higher the chance that something bad will happen that reduces the return on your investment. This is why the 30-year Treasury note carries a higher interest rate than the 10-year T-note, which carries higher interest than the 6-month, 1-year and 5-year T-bills. In most cases, you as an individual investor (or even an institutional investor like a hedge fund manager for an investment bank) cannot control the rate of return on an investment. The actual yield is determined by the market as a whole, in the form of people buying and selling the investments at a price that, coupled with the investment's payouts, determines the yield. The risk/return numbers are instead used to make a \"\"buy/don't buy\"\" decision on a particular investment. If the amount of risk you foresee in an investment would require you to be earning 10% to justify it, but in fact the investment only pays 6%, then don't buy it. If however, you'd be willing to accept 4% on the same investment given your perceived level of risk, then you should buy.\"" }, { "docid": "47579", "title": "", "text": "It is more easier if you select a Broker in India that would allow you these services. The reason being the broker in India will follow the required norms by India and allow you to invest without much hassel. Further as the institution would be in India, it would be more easy for resolving any disputes. ICICI Direct an Indian online broker allows one to trade in US stocks. For more details refer to ICIC Direct. Reliance Money also offers limited trading in US stocks. Selecting a Broker in US maybe more difficult as your would have to met their KYC norm's and also operate a Bank account in US. I am not aware of the requirements. For more details visit ICICI Direct website. Refer to http://www.finance-trading-times.com/2007/10/investing-in-us-stocks-and-options.html for a news article. TDAmeritrade or Charlesschwab are good online brokers, however from what I read they are more for US nationals holding Social Security. Further with the recent events and KYC norms becoming more stringent, it would be difficult for an individual [Indian Citizen] to open an account directly with these firms." }, { "docid": "149341", "title": "", "text": "\"I'd recommend an online FX broker like XE Trade at xe.com. There are no fees charged by XE other than the spread on the FX conversion itself (which you'll pay anywhere). They have payment clearing facilities in several countries (including UK BACS) so provided you're dealing with a major currency it should be possible to transfer money \"\"free\"\" (of wire charges at least). The FX spread will be much better than you would get from a bank (since FX is their primary business). The additional risk you take on is settlement risk. XE will not pay the sterling amount to your UK bank account until they have received the Euro payment into their account. If XE went bankrupt before crediting your UK account, but after you've paid them your Euros - you could lose your money. XE is backed by Custom House, which is a large and established Canadian firm - so this risk is very small indeed. There are other choices out there too, UKForex is another that comes to mind - although XE's rates have been the best of those I've tried.\"" }, { "docid": "442727", "title": "", "text": "\"Bob should treat both positions as incomplete, and explore a viewpoint which does a better job of separating value from volatility. So we should start by recognizing that what Bob is really doing is trading pieces of paper (say Stocks from Fund #1 or Bonds from Fund #2, to pick historically volatile and non-volatile instruments.*) for pieces of paper (Greenbacks). In the end, this is a trade, and should always be thought of as such. Does Bob value his stocks more than his bonds? Then he should probably draw from Fund #2. If he values his bonds more, he should probably draw from Fund #1. However, both Bob and his financial adviser demonstrate an assumption: that an instrument, whether stock bond or dollar bill, has some intrinsic value (which may raise over time). The issue is whether its perceived value is a good measure of its actual value or not. From this perspective, we can see the stock (Fund #1) as having an actual value that grows quickly (6.5% - 1.85% = 4.65%), and the bond (Fund #2) as having an actual value that grows slower (4.5% - 1.15$ = 3.35$). Now the perceived value of the stocks is highly volatile. The Chairman of the Fed sneezes and a high velocity trader drives a stock up or down at a rate that would give you whiplash. This perspective aligns with the broker's opinion. If the stocks are low, it means their perceived value is artificially low, and selling it would be a mistake because the market is perceiving those pieces of paper as being worth less than they actually are. In this case, Bob wins by keeping the stocks, and selling bonds, because the stocks are perceived as undervalued, and thus are worth keeping until perceptions change. On the other hand, consider the assumption we carefully slid into the argument without any fanfare: the assumption that the actual value of the stock aligns with its historical value. \"\"Past performance does not predict future results.\"\" Its entirely possible that the actual value of the stocks is actually much lower than the historical value, and that it was the perceived value that was artificially higher. It may be continuing to do so... who knows how overvalued the perceived value actually was! In this case, Bob wins by keeping the bonds. In this case, the stocks may have \"\"underperformed\"\" to drive perceptions towards their actual value, and Bob has a great chance to get out from under this market. The reality is somewhere between them. The actual values are moving, and the perceived values are moving, and the world mixes them up enough to make Scratchers lottery tickets look like a decent investment instrument. So what can we do? Bob's broker has a smart idea, he's just not fully explaining it because it is unprofessional to do so. Historically speaking, Bobs who lost a bunch of money in the stock market are poor judges of where the stock market is going next (arguably, you should be talking to the Joes who made a bunch of money. They might have more of a clue.). Humans are emotional beings, and we have an emotional instinct to cut ties when things start to go south. The market preys on emotional thinkers, happily giving them what they want in exchange for taking some of their money. Bob's broker is quoting a well recognized phrase that is a polite way of saying \"\"you are being emotional in your judgement, and here is a phrasing to suggest you should temper that judgement.\"\" Of course the broker may also not know what they're doing! (I've seen arguments that they don't!) Plenty of people listened to their brokers all the way to the great crash of 2008. Brokers are human too, they just put their emotions in different places. So now Bob has no clear voice to listen to. Sounds like a trap! However, there is a solution. Bob should think about more than just simple dollars. Bob should think about the rest of his life, and where he would like the risk to appear. If Bob draws from Fund #1 (liquidating stocks), then Bob has made a choice to realize any losses or gains early... specifically now. He may win, he may lose. However, no matter what, he will have a less volatile portfolio, and thus he can rely on it more in the long run. If Bob draws from Fund #2 (liquidating bonds) instead, then Bob has made a choice not to realize any losses or gains right away. He may win, he may lose. However, whether he wins or loses will not be clear, perhaps until retirement when he needs to draw on that money, and finds Fund #1 is still under-performing, so he has to work a few more years before retirement. There is a magical assumption that the stock market will always continue rewarding risk takers, but no one has quite been able to prove it! Once Bob includes his life perspective in the mix, and doesn't look just at the cold hard dollars on the table, Bob can make a more educated decision. Just to throw more options on the table, Bob might rationally choose to do any one of a number of other options which are not extremes, in order to find a happy medium that best fits Bob's life needs: * I intentionally chose to label Fund #1 as stocks and Fund #2 as bonds, even though this is a terribly crude assumption, because I feel those words have an emotional attachment associated to them which #1 and #2 simply do not. Given that part of the argument is that emotions play a part, it seemed reasonable to dig into underlying emotional biases as part of my wording. Feel free to replace words as you see fit to remove this bias if desired.\"" }, { "docid": "114908", "title": "", "text": "There are many good brokers available in the market and many spammers too. Personally I have been associated with FXCM since 2001 and have never faced any problem. But everyone has their own personal choice and I recommend you to make your own. But the question is how to find out which broker is a good broker and would provide you with a timely and reliable service? Online google check? Not really. There is so much competition between brokerage firms that they keep writing rubbish about each other on blogs and websites. Best thing is to is check with regulator's website. For US: NFA is a regulator for all forex firms. Information about any regulated forex firm could be found here. http://www.nfa.futures.org/basicnet/welcome.aspx For UK: Its FSA. Information on all regulated Uk based firm could be found here. http://www.fsa.gov.uk/register/firmSearchForm.do Remember in many countries its not compulsory for a forex firm to be regulated but being regulated ensure that the govt. has a watch on the operations of the firm. Also most of the firms out there provide accounts for large as well as small traders so there is nothing much to look for even if you are a small trader. Do keep in mind that if you are a US Citizen you are restricted by the US Govt. to trade only with a broker within US. You are not allowed to trade with any brokerage firm that is based outside the country. Forex Trading involves a significant amount of risk make sure you study the markets well and get yourself educated properly before risking your money. While I have made a lot of money trading forex I have seen a lot of people loosing everything. Please understand the risk and please make sure you only trade with the money which you can afford to loose." }, { "docid": "45174", "title": "", "text": "Here's a good strategy: Open up a Roth IRA at a discount-broker, like TD Ameritrade, invest in no-fee ETF's, tracking an Index, with very low expense ratios (look for around .15%) This way, you won't pay brokers fees whenever you buy shares, and shares are cheap enough to buy casually. This is a good way to start. When you learn more about the market, you can check out individual stocks, exploring different market sectors, etc. But you won't regret starting with a good index fund. Also, it's easy to know how well you did. Just listen on the radio or online for how the Dow or S&P did that day/month/year. Your account will mirror these changes!" }, { "docid": "482747", "title": "", "text": "I bought my last TV from them. Looked around online for the model I wanted for quite a while. Waited until bb had a clearance sale to get ready for the new models. They had 15% off, I talked with the sales rep and agreed to a 10% discount if I got any length of warranty with them. Talked with the manager for some more and he changed it to 25% total, instead of taking 15 off then 10. Used BB rewards card which gives back 4% in gift cards, paid on a credit card offering 5% cash back on electronics purchases at the time. Used the giftcards to buy a blu-ray player at a 30% discount that was dented. Dented one was broken so they swapped it with a new one the next day for no charge. Would the average person go through any of that trouble? Nope. The average customer wants a tv, walks into best buy, looks at the TVs and chooses the brightest one in their price range." }, { "docid": "879", "title": "", "text": "Since you are only 16, you still have time to mature what you will do with your life, always keep your mind opend. If you are really passionated about investement : read 1 book every week about investement, read the website investopedia, financial time, know about macro economic be good a math in school, learning coding and infrastructure can also be interesting since the stock is on server. learn about the history, you can watch on yoube shows about the history of money. learn accounting, the basic at least open a broker simulating account online ( you will play with a fake wallet but on real value) for 6 month, and after open a broker account with 100 real dollards and plays the penny stocks ( stock under 3 USD a share). after doing all this for 1 year you should know if you want to spend your life doing this and can choose universtity and intership accordingly. You can look on linkedin the profile of investement banker to know what school they attended. Best of luck for your future." }, { "docid": "360716", "title": "", "text": "\"What you seem to want is a dividend reinvestment plan (DRIP). That's typically offered by the broker, not by the ETF itself. Essentially this is a discounted purchase of new shares when you're dividend comes out. As noted in the answer by JoeTaxpayer, you'll still need to pay tax on the dividend, but that probably won't be a big problem unless you've got a lot of dividends. You'll pay that out of some other funds when it's due. All DRIPs (not just for ETFs) have potential to complicate computation of your tax basis for eventual sale, so be aware of that. It doesn't have to be a show-stopper for you, but it's something to consider before you start. It's probably less of a problem now than it used to be since brokers now have to report your basis on the 1099-B in the year of sale, reducing your administrative burden (if you trust them to get it right). Here's a list of brokerages that were offering this from a top-of-the-search-list article that I found online: Some brokerages, including TD Ameritrade, Vanguard, Scottrade, Schwab and, to a lesser extent, Etrade, offer ETF DRIPs—no-cost dividend reinvestment programs. This is very helpful for busy clients. Other brokerages, such as Fidelity, leave ETF dividend reinvestment to their clients. Source: http://www.etf.com/sections/blog/23595-your-etf-has-drip-drag.html?nopaging=1 Presumably the list is not constant. I almost didn't included but I thought the wide availability (at least as of the time of the article's posting) was more interesting than any specific broker on it. You'll want to do some research before you choose a broker to do this. Compare fees for sure, but also take into account other factors like how soon after the dividend they do the purchase (is it the ex-date, the pay date, or something else?). A quick search online should net you several decent articles with more information. I just searched on \"\"ETF DRIP\"\" to check it out.\"" }, { "docid": "76695", "title": "", "text": "I don't have any experience in this, but this is my academic understanding of business pricing. The LOWEST amount a seller would accept is the liquidation value. For a B&B, what would the value of the land, the house, the furnishings, accounts payable, etc. be if it had to be sold today, minus any liabilities. The amount the seller would like to pay for is going to be a multiple of its annual earnings. One example of this is the discounted cash flow analysis. You determine the EBITDA, the earnings a company generated, before interest, depreciation, taxation and amortization. Once you have this amount, you can project it out in perpetuity, or you use an industry multiplier. Perpetuity: You project this value out in perpituity, discounted by the going interest rate. In other words, if you project the business will earn $100,000/year, the business should grow at a 5% rate, and the going interest rate is 8%. Using a growing perpetuity formula, one value of a business would be: 100,000 / (.08 - .03) = $2,000,000. This is a very high number, and the seller would love to get it. It's more common to do a multiple of the EBIDTA. You can do some research into the valuation of the particular industry to figure out the EBIDTA multiplier for the industry. For example, this article suggests that the 2011 EBITDA multiplier for hospitality industries is 13.8. (It's valuing large hotel chains, but it's a start). So the value of this B&B would be around $1,380,000. Here is an online SME valuation tool to help with the EBIDTA multiple based valuation. Also, from my research, it looks like many small business use Seller Discretionary Earnings (SDE) instead of EBITDA. I don't know much about it, but it seems to serve a similar purpose as EBITDA. A potential buyer should request the financial statements of the business for the last few years to determine the value of the business, and then can negotiate with the owner a price. You would probably want to enlist a broker to help you with the transaction." }, { "docid": "38545", "title": "", "text": "\"Yes, Interactive Brokers is a good source for live data feeds and they have an API which is used to programmatically access the feeds, you will have to pay for data feeds from the individual data sources though. The stock exchanges have a very high price for their data and this has stifled innovation in the financial sector for several decades in the united states. But at the same time, it has inflated the value and mystique of \"\"quants\"\" doing simple algorithms \"\"that execute within milliseconds\"\" for banks and funds. Also RIZM has live feeds, it is a younger service than other exchanges but helps people tap into any online broker's feeds and let you trade your custom algorithms that way, that is their goal.\"" }, { "docid": "102682", "title": "", "text": "\"Are most big US based financial institutions and banks in such a close relationship with USCIS (United States Citizenship And Immigration Services) so they can easily request the information about market traders? Yes. They must be in order to enforce the laws required by the sanctions. What online broker would you suggest that probably won't focus on that dual citizenship matter? \"\"Dual\"\" citizenship isn't actually relevant here. Nearly anyone in the world can invest in US banks except for those few countries that the US has imposed sanctions against. Since you are a citizen of one of those countries, you are ineligible to participate. The fact that you are also a US citizen isn't relevant in this case. I believe the reasoning behind this is that the US doesn't encourage dual citizenship: The U.S. Government does not encourage dual nationality. While recognizing the existence of dual nationality and permitting Americans to have other nationalities, the U.S. Government also recognizes the problems which it may cause. Claims of other countries upon U.S. dual-nationals often place them in situations where their obligations to one country are in conflict with the laws of the other. In addition, their dual nationality may hamper efforts of the U.S. Government to provide consular protection to them when they are abroad, especially when they are in the country of their second nationality. If I had to guess, I'd say the thinking there is that if you (and enough other people that are citizens of that country) want to participate in something in the US that sanctions forbid, you (collectively) could try to persuade that country's government to change its actions so that the sanctions are lifted. Alternatively, you could renounce your citizenship in the other country. Either of those actions would help further the cause that the US perceives to be correct. What it basically boils down to is that even though you are a US citizen, your rights can be limited due to having another citizenship in a country that is not favorable in the current political climate. Thus there are pros and cons to having dual citizenship.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "405217", "title": "", "text": "For self-service type online customers, OptionsXpress gives me far better trading features(like technicals advanced conditions) and tools, ACH money management & scheduling, fullfillment too. $9 stock trades. I don't know if they yet share Schwab's (their new parent company?) commission-free ETFs getting so trendy nowadays." } ]

[ { "docid": "152709", "title": "", "text": "\"Members of the Federal Reserve System keep track of what money a bank has (if it's not in the vault), who owns what shares of stock, who owns what bond, etc. The part of the Federal Reserve System that tracks stock ownership is the Depository Trust Company (DTC). They have a group of subsidiaries that settle various types of security transactions. DTC is a member of the U.S. Federal Reserve System, a limited-purpose trust company under New York State banking law and a registered clearing agency with the Securities and Exchange Commission. There's lots of information on their website describing this process. DTCC's subsidiary, The Depository Trust Company (DTC), established in 1973, was created to reduce costs and provide clearing and settlement efficiencies by immobilizing securities and making \"\"book-entry\"\" changes to ownership of the securities. DTC provides securities movements for NSCC's net settlements1, and settlement for institutional trades (which typically involve money and securities transfers between custodian banks and broker/dealers), as well as money market instruments. Black pools are trades done where the price is not shared with the market. But the DTC is the one who keeps track of who owns which shares. They have records of all net transactions2. The DTC is the counterparty for transactions. When stock moves from one entity to another the DTC is involved. As the central counterparty for the nation's major exchanges and markets, DTCC clears and settles virtually all broker-to-broker equity 1. This is the link that shows that settlements are reported on a \"\"net basis\"\". 2. If broker A sells 1000 shares of something to broker B at 8 and then five minutes later broker B sells the 1000 shares back to A, you cannot be sure that that total volume will be recorded. No net trading took place and there would be fees to pay for no reason if they reported both trades. Note: In dark pool trading quite often the two parties don't know each other. For shares (book-keeping records) to be exchanged it has to be done through a Clearing House.\"" }, { "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": "582048", "title": "", "text": "To start trading at a minimum you need 3 things; Bank Account: This again is not must, but most preferred to transact. Quite a few broker would insist on this. Demat Account: This is must as all shares on NSE are held electronically. The custodians are CSDL or NSDL both Government entities. These don't offer services directly to customer, but via other financial institutions like Banks and Large Brokers. Broker Account: This is required to buy or sell securities. If you are only buying in IPO, this is not required as one can directly participate in IPO and Broker is not involved. However if you want to buy and sell on NSE you would need a broker account. Quite a few financial institutes offer all 3 services or 2 services [Demat/Broker]. The fee structure and online service etc are differentiators. You can take a look at options and decide the best one to use." }, { "docid": "94477", "title": "", "text": "Usually, you can buy ETFs through brokerages. I looked at London to see if there's any familiar brokerage names, and it appears that the address below is to Fidelity Investments Worldwide and their site indicates that you can buy securities. Any brokerage, in theory, should allow you to invest in securities. You could always call and ask if they allow you to invest in ETFs. Some brokerages may also allow you to purchase securities in other countries; for instance, some of the firms in the U.S. allow investors to invest in the ETF HK:2801, which is not a U.S. ETF. Many countries have ETF securities available to local and foreign investors. This site appears to help point people to brokers in London. Also, see this answer on this site (a UK investor who's invested in the U.S. through Barclays)." }, { "docid": "508597", "title": "", "text": "That price is the post-tender price, which already reflects arbitrage. It's less than $65 on the market because that's the highest offer out there and the market price reflects the risk that the $65 will not be paid. It also reflects the time value of money until the cash is disbursed (including blows to liquidity). In other words, you are buying the stock burdened with the risk that it might rapidly deflate if the deal falls through (or gets revived at a lower price) or that your money might be better spent somewhere other than waiting for the i-bank to release the tender offer amount to you. Two months ago JOSB traded around $55, and four months ago it traded around $50. If the deal fails, then you could be stuck either taking a big loss to get out of the stock or waiting months (or longer) in the hope that another deal will come along and pay $65 (which may leave you with NPV loss from today). The market seems to think that risk is pretty small, but it's still there. If the payout is $65, then you get a discount for time value and a discount for failed-merger risk. That means the price is less than $65. You can still make money on it, if the merger goes through. Some investors believe they have a better way to make money, and no doubt the tender offer of the incipient merger of two publicly traded companies is already heavily arbitraged. But that said, it may still pay off. Tender offer arbitrage is discussed in this article." }, { "docid": "251667", "title": "", "text": "\"Kid, you need to start thinking in thresholds. There are several monetary thresholds that separate your class from a more well funded class. 1) You cannot use margin with less than $2000 dollars Brokers require that you have at least $2000 before they will lend to you 2) In 2010, Congress banned under 21 year olds from getting access to credit. UNLESS they get cosigned. This means that even if you have $2000, no broker will give you margin unless you have a (good) credit history already. There was a good reason for this, but its based on the assumption that everyone is stupid, not the assumption that some people are objective thinkers. 3) The brokers that will open an account for you have high commissions. The commissions are so high that it will destroy any capital gains you may make with your $1000. For the most part. 4) The pattern day trader rule. You cannot employ sophisticated risk management while being subject to the pattern day trader rule. It basically limits you from trading 3 times a day (its more complicated than that read it yourself) if you have less than $25,000 in one account. 5) Non-trade or stock related investments: Buy municipal or treasury bonds. They will give you more than a savings account would, and municipals are tax free. This isn't exactly what I would call liquid though - ie. if you wanted to access your money to invest in something else on a whim. 6) What are you studying? If its anything technical then you might get a good idea that you could risk your money on to create value. But I would stick to high growth stocks before blowing your $1000 on an idea. Thats not exactly what I would call \"\"access to capital\"\". 7) Arbitrage. Lets say you know a friend that buys the trendy collectors shoes at discount and sells them for a profit. He might do this with one $200 pair of tennis shoes, and then use the $60 profit different to go buy video games for himself. If he wanted to scale up, he couldn't because he never has more than $200 to play with. In comparison, you could do 5 pairs ($200 x 5) and immediately have a larger operation than him, making a larger profit ($60 x 5 = $300, now you have $1300 and could do it again with 6 pairs to make an even great er profit) not because you are better or worked at it, but solely because you have more capital to start with. Keep an eye out for arbitrage opportunities, usually there is a good reason they exist if you notice it: the market is too small and illiquid to scale up with, or the entire market will be saturated the next day. (Efficient Market Theory, learn about it) 8) Take everything I just taught you, and make a \"\"small investor newsletter\"\" website with subscribers. Online sites have low overhead costs.\"" }, { "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": "114908", "title": "", "text": "There are many good brokers available in the market and many spammers too. Personally I have been associated with FXCM since 2001 and have never faced any problem. But everyone has their own personal choice and I recommend you to make your own. But the question is how to find out which broker is a good broker and would provide you with a timely and reliable service? Online google check? Not really. There is so much competition between brokerage firms that they keep writing rubbish about each other on blogs and websites. Best thing is to is check with regulator's website. For US: NFA is a regulator for all forex firms. Information about any regulated forex firm could be found here. http://www.nfa.futures.org/basicnet/welcome.aspx For UK: Its FSA. Information on all regulated Uk based firm could be found here. http://www.fsa.gov.uk/register/firmSearchForm.do Remember in many countries its not compulsory for a forex firm to be regulated but being regulated ensure that the govt. has a watch on the operations of the firm. Also most of the firms out there provide accounts for large as well as small traders so there is nothing much to look for even if you are a small trader. Do keep in mind that if you are a US Citizen you are restricted by the US Govt. to trade only with a broker within US. You are not allowed to trade with any brokerage firm that is based outside the country. Forex Trading involves a significant amount of risk make sure you study the markets well and get yourself educated properly before risking your money. While I have made a lot of money trading forex I have seen a lot of people loosing everything. Please understand the risk and please make sure you only trade with the money which you can afford to loose." }, { "docid": "476873", "title": "", "text": "You want to buy the online Theater Tickets, Then you can visit our company website. Our company gives the best offer and Discount for online Theater Tickets and other event. It's an easy booking for theatergoers to get the best seats at the most affordable from official sources and Buy Theater Tickets New York. Great seats are available at every price point and are easy to buy Discount Online Tickets, by phone, or in person at Theater box offices. For more information visits our company website." }, { "docid": "47579", "title": "", "text": "It is more easier if you select a Broker in India that would allow you these services. The reason being the broker in India will follow the required norms by India and allow you to invest without much hassel. Further as the institution would be in India, it would be more easy for resolving any disputes. ICICI Direct an Indian online broker allows one to trade in US stocks. For more details refer to ICIC Direct. Reliance Money also offers limited trading in US stocks. Selecting a Broker in US maybe more difficult as your would have to met their KYC norm's and also operate a Bank account in US. I am not aware of the requirements. For more details visit ICICI Direct website. Refer to http://www.finance-trading-times.com/2007/10/investing-in-us-stocks-and-options.html for a news article. TDAmeritrade or Charlesschwab are good online brokers, however from what I read they are more for US nationals holding Social Security. Further with the recent events and KYC norms becoming more stringent, it would be difficult for an individual [Indian Citizen] to open an account directly with these firms." }, { "docid": "320472", "title": "", "text": "\"In the case of an \"\"initial public offering\"\", the brokers underwriting the share issue will look at the current earnings being generated by the company and compare these to those of other competitor companies already listed in the stock market. For example, if a new telephone company is undertaking an initial public offering, then the share price of those telephone companies which are already traded on the stock market will serve as a reference for how much investors will be willing to pay for the new company's shares. If investors are willing to pay 15 times earnings for telecom shares, then this will be the benchmark used in determining the new share price. In addition, comparative growth prospects will be taken into account. Finally, the underwriter will want to see a successful sale, so they will tend to \"\"slightly under price\"\" the new shares in order to make them attractive. None of this is an exact science and we often see shares trading at a large premium to the initial offer price during the first few days of trading. More often that not, prices then settle down to something closer to the offer price. The initial price spike is usually the result of high demand for the shares by investors who believe that past examples of a price spike will repeat with this initial public offering. There will also usually be high demand for the new shares from funds that specialise in shares of the type being issued. In the case of a \"\"rights issue\"\", where an existing publicly traded company wishes to raise capital by issuing new shares, the company will price the new shares at a significant discount to the current market price. The new shares will be initially offered to existing shares holders and the discounted price is intended to encourage the existing shareholders to exercise their \"\"rights\"\" since the new shares may have the effect of diluting the value of their shares. Any shares which are not purchased by existing share holder will then be offered for sale in the market.\"" }, { "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 $2. The math is much more complicated, and depends on the value of your investment at every given point during the year, but that's the basic idea.) HOWEVER, there are index funds that track \"\"the market\"\" automatically, and they can have MUCH lower expense fees (0.05%, vs 1%) for the same quality of performance. Over 40 years, the expense ratio can have a surprisingly large impact on your net return, even 20% or more! You'll want to google separately about the right way to pick a low-expense index fund. Your online brokerage may also be able to help. Finally, ask friends or family what mutual funds they've invested in, how they chose those funds, and what their experience has been. The point is not to have them tell you what to do, but for you to learn from the mistakes and successes of other experienced investors with whom you can follow up.\"" }, { "docid": "303025", "title": "", "text": "Don't buy from them. Fry's Electronics matches all online prices. Just tell a Fry's employee that you saw the cheaper price at Best Buy or on Best Buy's website and they will match it. I don't know why or how this is happening, but Best Buy has some really good deals right now that I used to get discounts at Fry's last week." }, { "docid": "325669", "title": "", "text": "The company's value (which should be reflected in the share price) is not how much money it has in the bank, but something along the lines of 'how much money will it make between now and the end of times' (adjusted for time value of money and risk). So when you purchase a share of a company that has, say, little money in the bank, but expects to make 1M$ profit this year, 2M$ for the following 3 years, and say, nothing after, you are going to pay your fraction of 7M$ (minus some discount because of the risk involved). If now they announce that their profits were only 750k$, then people may think that the 2M$ are more likely to be 1.5M$, so the company's value would go to ~ 5M$. And with that, the market may perceive the company as more risky, because its profits deviated from what was expected, which in turn may reduce the company's value even further." }, { "docid": "38545", "title": "", "text": "\"Yes, Interactive Brokers is a good source for live data feeds and they have an API which is used to programmatically access the feeds, you will have to pay for data feeds from the individual data sources though. The stock exchanges have a very high price for their data and this has stifled innovation in the financial sector for several decades in the united states. But at the same time, it has inflated the value and mystique of \"\"quants\"\" doing simple algorithms \"\"that execute within milliseconds\"\" for banks and funds. Also RIZM has live feeds, it is a younger service than other exchanges but helps people tap into any online broker's feeds and let you trade your custom algorithms that way, that is their goal.\"" }, { "docid": "231181", "title": "", "text": "\"I don't know whether you'd consider buying a single bond instead of a fund. Strips are Treasuries where the coupons have been \"\"stripped\"\" to produce debt instruments with a fixed maturity date. They pay zero interest. Their value comes from the fact that you buy them at a price less than 100 and they are worth exactly 100 at some point in the future. You can buy them with any year/month that you wish. They are backed by the federal government and are considered to have no default risk. Like most bonds the price is actually a percentage and they mature at a 100. The one that expires 9/30/2018 costs 91.60 and returns 100 on the expiration date. The price list is here There's more information about them here First of all, they are still T-bonds (in all but the most legalistic sense) which means they are the safest, most risk-free investment possible. The U.S. federal government has stellar credit and a record of never defaulting. These bonds have no call features, so the timing and distribution of bond payments cannot be altered by any foreseeable occurrence. They are sold at a known - and generally deep - discount off a known face value that can be redeemed at a known date, so buyers know exactly how much they will earn from an investment in STRIPS.\"" }, { "docid": "262011", "title": "", "text": "\"Your argument is biased vastly in favor of the banks: Doesn't the simultaneous growth of the residential and commercial real estate pricing bubbles undermines the case made by yourself that Fannie and Freddie were at the root of the problem? Why does your explanation also leave out predatory lending? Or that during 2006, 22% of homes purchased (1.65 million units) were for investment purposes, with an additional 14% (1.07 million units) purchased as vacation homes. During 2005, these figures were 28% and 12%, respectively. In other words, a record level of nearly 40% of homes purchased were not intended as primary residences. Or that housing prices nearly doubled between 2000 and 2006, a vastly different trend from the historical appreciation at roughly the rate of inflation. Or that the proportion of subprime ARM loans made to people with credit scores high enough to qualify for conventional mortgages with better terms increased from 41% in 2000 to 61% by 2006. From wikipedia: So why did lending standards decline? In a Peabody Award winning program, NPR correspondents argued that a \"\"Giant Pool of Money\"\" (represented by $70 trillion in worldwide fixed income investments) sought higher yields than those offered by U.S. Treasury bonds early in the decade. Further, this pool of money had roughly doubled in size from 2000 to 2007, yet the supply of relatively safe, income generating investments had not grown as fast. Investment banks on Wall Street answered this demand with financial innovation such as the mortgage-backed security (MBS) and collateralized debt obligation (CDO), which were assigned safe ratings by the credit rating agencies. In effect, Wall Street connected this pool of money to the mortgage market in the U.S., with enormous fees accruing to those throughout the mortgage supply chain, from the mortgage broker selling the loans, to small banks that funded the brokers, to the giant investment banks behind them. By approximately 2003, the supply of mortgages originated at traditional lending standards had been exhausted. However, continued strong demand for MBS and CDO began to drive down lending standards, as long as mortgages could still be sold along the supply chain. Eventually, this speculative bubble proved unsustainable.\"" }, { "docid": "45174", "title": "", "text": "Here's a good strategy: Open up a Roth IRA at a discount-broker, like TD Ameritrade, invest in no-fee ETF's, tracking an Index, with very low expense ratios (look for around .15%) This way, you won't pay brokers fees whenever you buy shares, and shares are cheap enough to buy casually. This is a good way to start. When you learn more about the market, you can check out individual stocks, exploring different market sectors, etc. But you won't regret starting with a good index fund. Also, it's easy to know how well you did. Just listen on the radio or online for how the Dow or S&P did that day/month/year. Your account will mirror these changes!" }, { "docid": "293620", "title": "", "text": "You're on the right track with buying clunkers, but letting your current cars get repossessed is a bad idea for the reasons you specified. First, find an insurance broker instead of an insurance agent. A broker works with dozens of companies, many of which you may not have heard of. He is in a better position to find you the best deal than you are because he is familiar with more insurance company products than you are. He doesn't charge you extra for this service. Second, ask your insurance broker if he can find any insurers offering discounts for persons who have passed a driver training course. Find an accredited course and determine pricing. If the savings exceed the cost of the course, take the course. Third, if you have outstanding loans on your vehicles, pay them off and sell the cars. Replace them with vehicles you can purchase outright with cash. Make sure you have enough money to replace them again should another accident happen. Once you have vehicles that are lein-free there is no longer a requirement by the lender for you to have insurance for the replacement value of the vehicle, which is what's killing your rates right now. Find out what the minimum legal requirement for auto insurance is in your state. In Canada, the minimum requirement is $100,000 liability. Anything else is either a sales job or a lender requirement. Getting your wife to insure her own vehicle may help, getting your insurance under her name may also be something to look into. Since you seem to have issues with people bumping into you and there have been no medical issues, $100,000 liability may be all you need. Note: Tactic #3 is not without risk. If you are in an at-fault accident, you will have to pay for any damages exceeding your insured limit out of your own pocket. Any damages to your own vehicle whether at-fault or not will have to be paid out of your own pocket. If you are sued for medical expenses incurred by other parties, you'll have to pay anything over and above your insured limit out of your own pocket. If there is anything you are unclear about on your insurance policy, ask your agent/broker to explain until you do understand. Buying auto insurance without fully understanding what you are paying for is another risk." } ]

[ { "docid": "265167", "title": "", "text": "I don't believe you can do that. From the IRS: Finally, certain types of property are specifically excluded from Section 1031 treatment. Section 1031 does not apply to exchanges of: I highlighted the relevant items for emphasis." } ]

[ { "docid": "560783", "title": "", "text": "Mutual funds don't do what ETFs do because, according to how the fund was built in their contract, they can't. That is not how they are built and the people that invested in them expect them to act in a certain way. That is ok, though. Many people still invest in mutual funds partially because of their history but there are some advantages to mutual funds over etfs. Mainly mutual funds must mark-to-market at the end of day while etf values can drift from the asset value especially in crisis. As long enough people invest in mutual funds the funds make enough money on their fees they don't need to change. Maybe mutual funds will go extinct as etfs do have significant advantages, but it likely won't happen soon." }, { "docid": "48691", "title": "", "text": "\"And you have hit the nail on the head of holding gold as an alternative to liquid currency. There is simply no way to reliably buy and sell physical gold at the spot price unless you have millions of dollars. Exhibit A) The stock symbol GLD is an ETF backed by gold. Its shares are redeemable for gold if you have more than 100,000 shares then you can be assisted by an \"\"Authorized Participant\"\". Read the fund's details. Less than 100,000 shares? no physical gold for you. With GLD's share price being $155.55 this would mean you need to have over 15 million dollars, and be financially solvent enough to be willing to exchange the liquidity of shares and dollars for illiquid gold, that you wouldn't be able to sell at a fair price in smaller denominations. The ETF trades at a different price than the gold spot market, so you technically are dealing with a spread here too. Exhibit B) The futures market. Accepting delivery of a gold futures contract also requires that you get 1000 units of the underlying asset. This means 1000 gold bars which are currently $1,610.70 each. This means you would need $1,610,700 that you would be comfortable with exchanging for gold bars, which: In contrast, securitized gold (gold in an ETF, for instance) can be hedged very easily, and one can sell covered calls to negate transaction fees, hedge, and collect dividends from the fund. quickly recuperating any \"\"spread tax\"\" that you encounter from opening the position. Also, leverage: no bank would grant you a loan to buy 4 to 20 times more gold than you can actually afford, but in the stock market 4 - 20 times your account value on margin is possible and in the futures market 20 times is pretty normal (\"\"initial margin and maintenance margin\"\"), effectively bringing your access to the spot market for physical gold more so within reach. caveat emptor.\"" }, { "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": "469141", "title": "", "text": "When you are starting out using a balanced fund can be quite advantageous. A balanced fund is represents a diversified portfolio in single fund. The primary advantage of using a balanced fund is that with it being a single fund it is easier to meet the initial investment minimum. Later once you have enough to transition to a portfolio of diversified funds you would sell the fund and buy the portfolio. With a custom portfolio, you will be better able to target your risk level and you might also be able to use lower cost funds. The other item to check is do any of the funds that you might be interested in for the diversified portfolio have lower initial investment option if you can commit to adding money on a specified basis (assuming that you are able to). Also there might be an ETF version of a mutual fund and for those the initial investment amount is just the share price. The one thing to be aware of is make sure that you can buy enough shares that you can rebalance (holding a single share makes it hard to sell some gain when rebalancing). I would stay away from individual stocks until you have a much larger portfolio, assuming that you want to invest with a diversified portfolio. The reason being that it takes a lot more money to create a diversified portfolio out of individual stocks since you have to buy whole shares. With a mutual fund or ETF, your underlying ownership of can be fractional with no issue as each fund share is going to map into a fraction of the various companies held and with mutual funds you can buy fractional shares of the fund itself." }, { "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": "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": "580364", "title": "", "text": "\"This is a misconception. One of the explanations is that if you buy at the ask price and want to sell it right away, you can only sell at the bid price. This is incorrect. There are no two separate bid and ask prices. The price you buy (your \"\"bid\"\") is the same price someone else sells (their \"\"sell\"\"). The same goes when you sell - the price you sell at is the price someone else buys. There's no spread with stocks. Emphasized it on purpose, because many people (especially those who gamble on stock exchange without knowing what they're doing) don't understand how the stock market works. On the stock exchange, the transaction price is the match between the bid price and the ask price. Thus, on any given transaction, bid always equals ask. There's no spread. There is spread with commodities (if you buy it directly, especially), contracts, mutual funds and other kinds of brokered transactions that go through a third party. The difference (spread) is that third party's fee for assuming part of the risk in the transaction, and is indeed added to your cost (indirectly, in the way you described). These transactions don't go directly between a seller and a buyer. For example, there's no buyer when you redeem some of your mutual fund - the fund pays you money. So the fund assumes certain risk, which is why there's a spread in the prices to invest and to redeem. Similarly with commodities: when you buy a gold bar - you buy it from a dealer, who needs to keep a stock. Thus, the dealer will not buy from you at the same price: there's a premium on sale and a discount on buy, which is a spread, to compensate the dealer for the risk of keeping a stock.\"" }, { "docid": "114054", "title": "", "text": "\"I'm not following what's the meaning of \"\"open a mutual fund\"\". You don't open a mutual fund, you invest in it. There's a minimum required investment ($2000? Could be, some funds have lower limits, you don't have to go with the Fidelity one necessarily), but in general it has nothing to do with your Roth IRA account. You can invest in mutual funds with any trading account, not just Roth IRA (or any other specific kind). If you invest in ETF's - you can invest in funds just as well (subject to the minimums set). As to the plan itself - buying and selling ETF's will cost you commission, ~2-3% of your investment. Over several months, you may get positive returns, and may get negative returns, but keep in mind that you start with the 2-3% loss on day 1. Within a short period of time, especially in the current economic climate (which is very unstable - just out of recession, election year, etc etc), I would think that keeping the cash in a savings account would be a better choice. While with ETF you don't have any guarantees other than -3%, then with savings accounts you can at least have a guaranteed return of ~1% APY (i.e.: won't earn much over the course of your internship, but you'll keep your money safe for your long term investment). For the long term - the fluctuations of month to month don't matter much, so investing now for the next 50 years - you shouldn't care about the stock market going 10% in April. So, keep your 1000 in savings account, and if you want to invest 5000 in your Roth IRA - invest it then. Assuming of course that you're completely positive about not needing this money in the next several decades.\"" }, { "docid": "225239", "title": "", "text": "Most investors should not be in individual stocks. The market, however you measure it, can rise, yet some stocks will fall for whatever reason. The diversification needed is to have a number of shares of different stocks, and that a bit higher than most investors are able to invest and certainly not one starting out. I suggest you look at either mutual funds or ETFs, and keep studying. (I'm told I should have offered the UK equivalent Investment Trusts , OEIC, or Unit Trusts)" }, { "docid": "371922", "title": "", "text": "\"I will give a slightly different answer which is actually an addendum to JoeTaxpayer's (soon-to-be-edited) answer. Do NOT go to your financial advisor and ask him \"\"How do I go about transferring my Roth IRA to ....\"\"? where .... is whichever broker or mutual fund family that you have chosen from the list that Joe has suggested. Instead, go to the website of the new group (or call their toll-free number) and tell them \"\"I want to open a Roth IRA account with you and fund it by transferring all the money in my Roth IRA from First Clearing.\"\" Your new Roth IRA custodian will take care of all the paperwork and get the money transferred over at no cost to you except possibly fielding a weepy call from your current financial advisor because he had just ordered his new Lamborghini and now will have difficulty making payments on his auto loan. \"\"Why are you leaving me? After all the years we have had together?\"\" You will need to choose some place to put the money, and I suggest that you use their S&P 500 Index Fund, not the S&P 500 ETF, just the standard vanilla S&P 500 Index Mutual Fund. This recommendation is almost heresy in this forum, but it is better to pay the extra 0.01% fee that the Fund charges over and above the ETF until you become a little more savvy and are ready to branch out into individual stocks (which is when you really need a brokerage account). Revelation: I have never made the transition and invest only in mutual funds which does not require a brokerage account. After doing all this, pay no attention whatsoever to your Roth IRA investment or how the S&P 500 Index is doing for the next 20 years. This will help avoid the temptation of taking all your money out just because the Index went down a little. Everybody is told \"\"Buy Low, Sell High\"\" but far too many folks end up doing exactly the opposite: buying because the stock market is up and selling when it starts going down.\"" }, { "docid": "299284", "title": "", "text": "The advice I have is short and sweet. Be an investor, not a speculator. Adopt the philosophy of Warren Buffet which is the 'buy and hold' philosophy. Avoid individual stocks and buy mutual funds or ETFs. Pick something that pays dividends and reinvest those dividends. Don't become a speculator, meaning avoid the 'buy low, sell high' philosophy. EDIT:For some reason I cannot add a comment, so I am putting my response here. @jad The 'buy low, sell high' approach makes money for the stock broker, not necessarily you. As we learn in the movie Trading Places, each buy or sell creates a commission for the broker. It is those commission expenses that eat away at your nestegg. Just don't sell. If a security is trading at $10 a share and pays $0.25 a share each quarter then you are getting 10% ROI if you buy that security (and if it continues to pay $0.25 a share each quarter). If the price goes up then the ROI for new buyers will go down, but your ROI will still be the same. You will continue to get 10% for as long as you hold that security. A mutual fund buys the individual stocks for you. The value of the fund is only calculated at the end of the day. An ETF is like a mutual fund but the value of the ETF is calculated moment by moment." }, { "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": "345597", "title": "", "text": "I would not advise any stock-picking or other active management (even using mutual funds that are actively managed). There is a large body of knowledge that needs learning before you even attempt that. Stay passive with index funds (either ETFs or (even better) low-cost passive mutual funds (because these prevent you from buying/selling). But I have not problem saying you can invest 100% in equity as long as your stomach can handle the price swings. If you freek out after a 25% drop that does not recover within a year, so you sell at the market bottom, then you are better off staying with a lot less risk. It is personal. There are a lot of valid reasons for young people to accept more risk - and equally valid reason why not. See list at http://www.retailinvestor.org/saving.html#norisk" }, { "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": "370244", "title": "", "text": "Behind the scenes, mutual funds and ETFs are very similar. Both can vary widely in purpose and policies, which is why understanding the prospectus before investing is so important. Since both mutual funds and ETFs cover a wide range of choices, any discussion of management, assets, or expenses when discussing the differences between the two is inaccurate. Mutual funds and ETFs can both be either managed or index-based, high expense or low expense, stock or commodity backed. Method of investing When you invest in a mutual fund, you typically set up an account with the mutual fund company and send your money directly to them. There is often a minimum initial investment required to open your mutual fund account. Mutual funds sometimes, but not always, have a load, which is a fee that you pay either when you put money in or take money out. An ETF is a mutual fund that is traded like a stock. To invest, you need a brokerage account that can buy and sell stocks. When you invest, you pay a transaction fee, just as you would if you purchase a stock. There isn't really a minimum investment required as there is with a traditional mutual fund, but you usually need to purchase whole shares of the ETF. There is inherently no load with ETFs. Tax treatment Mutual funds and ETFs are usually taxed the same. However, capital gain distributions, which are taxable events that occur while you are holding the investment, are more common with mutual funds than they are with ETFs, due to the way that ETFs are structured. (See Fidelity: ETF versus mutual funds: Tax efficiency for more details.) That having been said, in an index fund, capital gain distributions are rare anyway, due to the low turnover of the fund. Conclusion When comparing a mutual fund and ETF with similar objectives and expenses and deciding which to choose, it more often comes down to convenience. If you already have a brokerage account and you are planning on making a one-time investment, an ETF could be more convenient. If, on the other hand, you have more than the minimum initial investment required and you also plan on making additional regular monthly investments, a traditional no-load mutual fund account could be more convenient and less expensive." }, { "docid": "285466", "title": "", "text": "Like others have said, mutual funds don't have an intraday NAV, but their ETF equivalents do. Use something like Yahoo Finance and search for the ETF.IV. For example VOO.IV. This will give you not the ETF price (which may be at a premium or discount), but the value of the underlying securities updated every 15 seconds." }, { "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": "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": "580802", "title": "", "text": "You cannot do a 1031 exchange with stocks, bonds, mutual funds, or ETFs. There really isn't much difference between an ETF and its equivalent index mutual fund. Both will have minimal capital gains distributions. I would not recommend selling an index mutual fund and taking a short-term capital gain just to buy the equivalent ETF." } ]

[ { "docid": "402046", "title": "", "text": "Ending up with nothing is an unlikely situation unless you invest 100% in a company stock and the company goes under. In order to give you a good answer we need to see what options your employer gives for 401k investments. The best advice would be to take a list of all options that your employer allows and talk with a financial advisor. Here are a few options that you may or may not have as an option from an employer: Definitions from wikipedia: A target-date fund – also known as a lifecycle, dynamic-risk or age-based fund – is a collective investment scheme, usually a mutual fund, designed to provide a simple investment solution through a portfolio whose asset allocation mix becomes more conservative as the target date (usually retirement) approaches. An index fund or index tracker is a collective investment scheme (usually a mutual fund or exchange-traded fund) that aims to replicate the movements of an index of a specific financial market... An exchange-traded fund (ETF) is an investment fund traded on stock exchanges, much like stocks.[1] An ETF holds assets such as stocks, commodities, or bonds, and trades close to its net asset value over the course of the trading day. Most ETFs track an index, such as a stock index or bond index. ETFs may be attractive as investments because of their low costs, tax efficiency, and stock-like features. The capital stock (or stock) of an incorporated business constitutes the equity stake of its owners. Which one can you lose everything in? You can lose everything in stocks by the company going under. In Index funds the entire market that it follows would have to collapse. The chances are slim here since the index made up of several companies. The S&P 500 is made up of 500 leading companies publicly traded in the U.S. A Pacific-Europe index such as MSCI EAFE Index is made up of 907 companies. The chances of losing everything in an ETF are also slim. The ETF that follows the S&P 500 is made up of 500 companies. An Pacific-Europe ETF such as MSCI EAFE ETF is made up of 871 companies. Target date funds are also slim to lose everything. Target date funds are made up of several companies like indexes and etfs and also mix in bonds and other investments depending on your age. What would I recommend? I would recommend the Index funds and/or ETFs that have the lowest fee that make up the following strategy for your age: Why Not Target Date Funds or Stocks? Target date funds have high fees. Later in life when you are closer to retirement you may want to add bonds to your portfolio. At that time if this is the only option to add bonds then you can change your elections. Stocks are too risky for you with your current knowledge. If your company matches by buying their stock you may want to consider reallocating that stock at certain points to your Index funds or ETFs." }, { "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": "349668", "title": "", "text": "This is more than likely a thing about your financial institution and the exchanges where they trade shares. Some exchanges cannot/will not handle odd lot transactions. Most established brokerages have software and accounting systems that will deal in round lots with the exchanges, but can track your shares individually. Sometimes specific stocks cannot be purchased in odd lots due to circumstances specific to that stock (trading only on a specific exchange, for example). Most brokerages offer dollar-cost averaging programs, but may limit which stocks are eligible, due to odd lot and partial share purchases. Check with your brokerage to see if they can support odd lot and/or DCA purchases. You may find another similar ETF with similar holdings that has better trading conditions, or might consider an open-end mutual fund with similar objectives. Mutual funds allow partial share purchases (you have $100 to invest today, and they issue you 35.2 shares, for example)." }, { "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": "114054", "title": "", "text": "\"I'm not following what's the meaning of \"\"open a mutual fund\"\". You don't open a mutual fund, you invest in it. There's a minimum required investment ($2000? Could be, some funds have lower limits, you don't have to go with the Fidelity one necessarily), but in general it has nothing to do with your Roth IRA account. You can invest in mutual funds with any trading account, not just Roth IRA (or any other specific kind). If you invest in ETF's - you can invest in funds just as well (subject to the minimums set). As to the plan itself - buying and selling ETF's will cost you commission, ~2-3% of your investment. Over several months, you may get positive returns, and may get negative returns, but keep in mind that you start with the 2-3% loss on day 1. Within a short period of time, especially in the current economic climate (which is very unstable - just out of recession, election year, etc etc), I would think that keeping the cash in a savings account would be a better choice. While with ETF you don't have any guarantees other than -3%, then with savings accounts you can at least have a guaranteed return of ~1% APY (i.e.: won't earn much over the course of your internship, but you'll keep your money safe for your long term investment). For the long term - the fluctuations of month to month don't matter much, so investing now for the next 50 years - you shouldn't care about the stock market going 10% in April. So, keep your 1000 in savings account, and if you want to invest 5000 in your Roth IRA - invest it then. Assuming of course that you're completely positive about not needing this money in the next several decades.\"" }, { "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": "161019", "title": "", "text": "Your tax efficient reasoning is solid for where you want to distribute your assets. ETFs are often more tax efficient than their equivalent mutual funds but the exact differences would depend on the comparison between the fund and ETF you were considering. The one exception to this rule is Vanguard funds and ETFs which have the exact same tax-efficiency because ETFs are a share class of the corresponding mutual 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": "387277", "title": "", "text": "ETFs are just like any other mutual fund; they hold a mix of assets described by their prospectus. If that mix fits your needs for diversification and the costs of buying/selling/holding are low, it's as worth considering as a traditional fund with the same mix. A bond fund will hold a mixture of bonds. Whether that mix is sufficiently diversified for you, or whether you want a different fund or a mix of funds, is a judgement call. I want my money to take care of itself for the most part, so most of the bond portion is in a low-fee Total Bond Market Index fund (which tries to match the performance of bonds in general). That could as easily be an ETF, but happens not to be." }, { "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": "554213", "title": "", "text": "See the following information: http://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Treasury_Inflation_Protected_Security You can buy individual bonds or you can purchase many of them together as a mutual fund or ETF. These bonds are designed to keep pace with inflation. Buying individual inflation-protected US government bonds is about as safe as you can get in the investment world. The mutual fund or ETF approach exposes you to interest rate risk - the fund's value can (and sometimes does) drop. Its value can also increase if interest rates fall." }, { "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": "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": "359201", "title": "", "text": "\"First, it's an exaggeration to say \"\"every\"\" dollar. Traditional mutual funds, including money-market funds, keep a small fraction of their assets in cash for day-to-day transactions, maybe 1%. If you invest $1, they put that in the cash bucket and issue you a share. If you and 999 other people invest $100 each, not offset by people redeeming, they take the aggregated $100,000 and buy a bond or two. Conversely, if you redeem one share it comes out of cash, but if lots of people redeem they sell some bond(s) to cover those redemptions -- which works as long as the bond(s) can in fact be sold for close enough to their recorded value. And this doesn't mean they \"\"can't fail\"\". Even though they are (almost totally) invested in securities that are thought to be among the safest and most liquid available, in sufficiently extreme circumstances those investments can fall in market value, or they can become illiquid and unavailable to cover \"\"withdrawals\"\" (redemptions). ETFs are also fully invested, but the process is less direct. You don't just send money to the fund company. Instead: Thus as long as the underlyings for your ETF hold their value, which for a money market they are designed to, and the markets are open and the market maker firms are operating, your ETF shares are well backed. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exchange-traded_fund for more.\"" }, { "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": "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": "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": "108433", "title": "", "text": "While it may not be your preferred outcome, and doesn't eliminate the income, in the event you find yourself in the path described here you have a way to defer gains to the future. but I would then want to buy another house as a rental If you sell this house and buy another investment property (within strict time windows: 45 days to written contract and closed in 180 days), you can transfer your basis and defer your gains via what is called a 1031 like-kind exchange" }, { "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": "194561", "title": "", "text": "There is no chance the deal will complete before option expiration. Humana stock will open Monday close to the $235 buyout price, and the options will reflect that value. $40 plus a bit of time value, but with just 2 weeks to expiration, not much." } ]

[ { "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": "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": "510233", "title": "", "text": "I feel dividends are better for shareholders. The idea behind buy backs is that future profits are split between fewer shares, thereby increasing the value (not necessarily price -- that's a market function) of the remaining shares. This presupposes that the company then retires the shares it repurchases. But quite often buybacks simply offset dilution from stock option compensation programs. In my opinion, some stock option compensation is acceptable, but overuse of this becomes a form of wealth transfer -- from the shareholder to management. The opposite of shareholder friendly! But let's assume the shares are being retired. That's good, but at what cost? The company must use cashflow (cash) to pay for the shares. The buyback is only a positive for shareholders if the shares are undervalued. Managers can be very astute in their own sphere: running their business. Estimating a reasonable range of intrinsic value for their shares is a difficult, and very subjective task, requiring many assumptions about future revenue and margins. A few managers, like Warren Buffett, are very competent capital allocators. But most managers aren't that good in this area. And being so close to the company, they're often overly optimistic. So they end up overpaying. If a company's shares are worth, say, $30, it's not unreasonable to assume they may trade all around that number, maybe as low as $15, and as high as $50. This is overly simplistic, but assuming the value doesn't change -- that the company is in steady-state mode, then the $30 point, the intrinsic value estimate, will act as a magnet for the market price. Eventually it regresses toward the value point. Well, if management doesn't understand this, they could easily pay $50 for the repurchased stock (heck, companies routinely just continue buying stock, with no apparent regard for the price they're paying). This is one of the quickest ways to vaporize shareholder capital (overpaying for dubious acquisitions is another). Dividends, on the other hand, require no estimates. They can't mask other activities, other agendas. They don't transfer wealth from shareholders to management. US companies traditionally pay quarterly, and they try very hard not to cut the dividend. Many companies grow the dividend steadily, at a rate several times that of inflation. The dividend is an actual cash expenditure. There's no GAAP reporting constructs to get in the way of what's really going on. The company must be fiscally conservative and responsible, or risk not having the cash when they need to pay it out. The shareholder gets the cash, and can then reinvest as he/she sees fit with available opportunities at the time, including buying more shares of the company, if undervalued. But if overvalued, the money can be invested in a better, safer opportunity." }, { "docid": "439719", "title": "", "text": "Without getting to hung-up on terminology here, the management of a company will often attempt to keep stock prices high because of a number of reasons: Ideally companies keep prices up through performance. In some cases, you'll see companies do other things spending cash and/or issuing bonds to continue to pay dividends (e.g. IBM), or spending cash and/or issuing bonds to pay for stock buybacks (e.g. IBM). These methods can work for a time but are not sustainable and will often be seen as acts of desperation. Companies that have a solid plan for growth will typically not do much of anything to directly change stock prices. Bonds are a bit different because they have a fairly straight-forward valuation model based on the fact that they pay out a fixed amount per month. The two main reason prices in bonds go down are: The key here is that bonds pay out the same thing per month regardless of their price or the price of other bonds available. Most stocks do not pay any dividend and for much of those that do, the main factor as to whether you make or lose money on them is the stock price. The price of bonds does matter to governments, however. Let's say a country successfully issued some 10 year bonds last year at the price of 1000. They pay 1% per month (to keep the math simple.) Every month, they pay out $10 per bond. Then some (stupid) politicians start threatening to default on bond payments. The bond market freaks and people start trying to unload these bonds as fast as they can. The going price drops to $500. Next month, the payments are the same. The coupon rate on the bonds has not changed at all. I'm oversimplifying here but this is the core of how bond prices work. You might be tempted to think that doesn't matter to the country but it does. Now, this same country wants to issue some more bonds. It wants to get that 1% rate again but it can't. Why would anyone pay $1000 for a 1% (per month) bond when they can get the exact same bond with (basically) the same risks for $500? Instead they have to offer a 2% (per month) rate in order to match the market price. A government (or company) could in fact put money into the bond market to bolster the price of it's bonds (i.e. keep the rates down.) The problem is that if you are issuing bonds, it's generally (caveats apply) because you need cash that you don't have so what money are you going to use to buy these bonds? Or in other words, it doesn't make sense to issue bonds and then simply plow the cash gained from that issuance back into the same bonds you are issuing. The options here are a bit more limited. I have to mention though that the US government (via a quasi-governmental entity) did actually buy it's own bonds. This policy of Quantitative Easing (QE) was done for more complicated reasons than simply keeping the price of bonds up." }, { "docid": "273947", "title": "", "text": "\"Exactly what accounts are affected by any given transaction is not a fixed thing. Just for example, in a simple accounting system you might have one account for \"\"stock on hand\"\". In a more complex system you might have this broken out into many accounts for different types of stock, stock in different locations, etc. So I can only suggest example specific accounts. But account type -- asset, liability, capital (or \"\"equity\"\"), income, expense -- should be universal. Debit and credit rules should be universal. 1: Sold product on account: You say it cost you $500 to produce. You don't say the selling price, but let's say it's, oh, $700. Credit (decrease) Asset \"\"Stock on hand\"\" by $500. Debit (increase) Asset \"\"Accounts receivable\"\" by $700. Credit (increase) Income \"\"Sales\"\" by $700. Debit (increase) Expense \"\"Cost of goods sold\"\" by $500. 2: $1000 spent on wedding party by friend I'm not sure how your friend's expenses affect your accounts. Are you asking how he would record this expense? Did you pay it for him? Are you expecting him to pay you back? Did he pay with cash, check, a credit card, bought on credit? I just don't know what's happening here. But just for example, if you're asking how your friend would record this in his own records, and if he paid by check: Credit (decrease) Asset \"\"checking account\"\" by $1000. Debit (increase) Expense \"\"wedding expenses\"\" by $1000. If he paid with a credit card: Credit (increase) Liability \"\"credit card\"\" by $1000. Debit (increase) Expense \"\"wedding expenses\"\" by $1000. When he pays off the credit card: Debit (decrease) Liability \"\"credit card\"\" by $1000. Credit (decrease) Asset \"\"cash\"\" by $1000. (Or more realistically, there are other expenses on the credit card and the amount would be higher.) 3: Issue $3000 in stock to partner company I'm a little shakier on this, I haven't worked with the stock side of accounting. But here's my best stab: Well, did you get anything in return? Like did they pay you for the stock? I wouldn't think you would just give someone stock as a present. If they paid you cash for the stock: Debit (increase) Asset \"\"cash\"\". Credit (decrease) Capital \"\"shareholder equity\"\". Anyone else want to chime in on that one, I'm a little shaky there. Here, let me give you the general rules. My boss years ago described it to me this way: You only need to know three things to understand double-entry accounting: 1: There are five types of accounts: Assets: anything you have that has value, like cash, buildings, equipment, and merchandise. Includes things you may not actually have in your hands but that are rightly yours, like money people owe you but haven't yet paid. Liabilities: Anything you owe to someone else. Debts, merchandise paid for but not yet delivered, and taxes due. Capital (some call it \"\"capital\"\", others call it \"\"equity\"\"): The difference between Assets and Liabilities. The owners investment in the company, retained earnings, etc. Income: Money coming in, the biggest being sales. Expenses: Money going out, like salaries to employees, cost of purchasing merchandise for resale, rent, electric bill, taxes, etc. Okay, that's a big \"\"one thing\"\". 2: Every transaction must update two or more accounts. Each update is either a \"\"debit\"\" or a \"\"credit\"\". The total of the debits must equal the total of the credits. 3: A dollar bill in your pocket is a debit. With a little thought (okay, sometimes a lot of thought) you can figure out everything else from there.\"" }, { "docid": "75965", "title": "", "text": "@MichaelBorgwardt gave an excellent answer. Let me add a little analogy here that might help. Suppose you bought a car from Joe's Auto Sales. You pay your money, do all the paperwork, and drive your car home. The next day Joe's goes bankrupt. What affect does that have on your ownership rights to your car? The answer is, Absolutely none. Same thing with stocks and a stock exchange. A stock exchange is basically just a store where you can buy stock. Once you buy it, it's yours. That said, there could potentially be a problem with record keeping. If you bought a car from Joe's Auto Sales, and Joe went out of business before sending the registration paperwork to the state, you might find that the state has no record that you legally own the car and you could have difficulty proving it. Likewise if a stock exchange went out of business without getting all their records properly updated, their might be an issue. Actually I think the bigger concern here for most folks would be their broker and not the stock exchange, as your broker is the one who keeps the records of what stocks you own long term. In practice, though, most companies are responsible enough to clean up their paperwork properly when they go out of business, and if they don't, a successor company or government regulators or someone will try to clean it all up." }, { "docid": "152945", "title": "", "text": "\"Institutions and market makers tend to try and stay delta neutral, meaning that for every options contract they buy or write, they buy or sell the equivalent underlying asset. This, as a theory, is called max pain, which is more of an observation of this behavior by retail investors. This as a reality is called delta hedging done by market makers and institutional investors. The phenomenom is that many times a stock gets pinned to a very even number at a particular price on options expiration days (like 500.01 or 499.99 by closing bell). At options expiration dates, many options contracts are being closed (instutitions and market makers are typically on the other side of those trades, to keep liquidity), so for every one standard 100 share contract the market maker wrote, they bought 100 shares of the underlying asset, to remain delta neutral. When the contract closes (or get rid of the option) they sell that 100 shares of the underlying asset. At mass volume of options traded, this would cause noticeable downward pressure, similarly for other trades it would cause upward pressure as institutions close their short positions against options they had bought. The result is a pinned stock right above or below an expiration that previously had a lot of open interest. This tends to happen in more liquid stocks, than less liquid ones, to answer that question. As they have more options series and more strike prices. No, this would not be illegal, in the US attempting to \"\"mark the close\"\" is supposedly prohibited but this wouldn't count as it, the effect of derivatives on stock prices is far beyond the SEC's current enforcement regime :) although an active area of research\"" }, { "docid": "407505", "title": "", "text": "\"This answer will expand a bit on the theory. :) A company, as an entity, represents a pile of value. Some of that is business value (the revenue stream from their products) and some of that is assets (real estate, manufacturing equipment, a patent portfolio, etc). One of those assets is cash. If you own a share in the company, you own a share of all those assets, including the cash. In a theoretical sense, it doesn't really matter whether the company holds the cash instead of you. If the company adds an extra $1 billion to its assets, then people who buy and sell the company will think \"\"hey, there's an extra $1 billion of cash in that company; I should be willing to pay $1 billion / shares outstanding more per share to own it than I would otherwise.\"\" Granted, you may ultimately want to turn your ownership into cash, but you can do that by selling your shares to someone else. From a practical standpoint, though, the company doesn't benefit from holding that cash for a long time. Cash doesn't do much except sit in bank accounts and earn pathetically small amounts of interest, and if you wanted pathetic amounts of interests from your cash you wouldn't be owning shares in a company, you'd have it in a bank account yourself. Really, the company should do something with their cash. Usually that means investing it in their own business, to grow and expand that business, or to enhance profitability. Sometimes they may also purchase other companies, if they think they can turn a profit from the purchase. Sometimes there aren't a lot of good options for what to do with that money. In that case, the company should say, \"\"I can't effectively use this money in a way which will grow my business. You should go and invest it yourself, in whatever sort of business you think makes sense.\"\" That's when they pay a dividend. You'll see that a lot of the really big global companies are the ones paying dividends - places like Coca-Cola or Exxon-Mobil or what-have-you. They just can't put all their cash to good use, even after their growth plans. Many people who get dividends will invest them in the stock market again - possibly purchasing shares of the same company from someone else, or possibly purchasing shares of another company. It doesn't usually make a lot of sense for the company to invest in the stock market themselves, though. Investment expertise isn't really something most companies are known for, and because a company has multiple owners they may have differing investment needs and risk tolerance. For instance, if I had a bunch of money from the stock market I'd put it in some sort of growth stock because I'm twenty-something with a lot of savings and years to go before retirement. If I were close to retirement, though, I would want it in a more stable stock, or even in bonds. If I were retired I might even spend it directly. So the company should let all its owners choose, unless they have a good business reason not to. Sometimes companies will do share buy-backs instead of dividends, which pays money to people selling the company stock. The remaining owners benefit by reducing the number of shares outstanding, so they own more of what's left. They should only do this if they think the stock is at a fair price, or below a fair price, for the company: otherwise the remaining owners are essentially giving away cash. (This actually happens distressingly often.) On the other hand, if the company's stock is depressed but it subsequently does better than the rest of the market, then it is a very good investment. The one nice thing about share buy-backs in general is that they don't have any immediate tax implications for the company's owners: they simply own a stock which is now more valuable, and can sell it (and pay taxes on that sale) whenever they choose.\"" }, { "docid": "25671", "title": "", "text": "The main question is, how much money you want to make? With every transaction, you should calculate the real price as the price plus costs. For example, if you but 10 GreatCorp stock of £100 each, and the transaction cost is £20 , then the real cost of buying a single share is in fact buying price of stock + broker costs / amount bought, or £104 in this case. Now you want to make a profit so calculate your desired profit margin. You want to receive a sales price of buying price + profit margin + broker costs / amount bought. Suppose that you'd like 5%, then you'll need the price per stock of my example to increase to 100 + 5% + £40 / 10 = £109. So you it only becomes worth while if you feel confident that GreatCorp's stock will rise to that level. Read the yearly balance of that company to see if they don't have any debt, and are profitable. Look at their dividend earning history. Study the stock's candle graphs of the last ten years or so, to find out if there's no seasonal effects, and if the stock performs well overall. Get to know the company well. You should only buy GreatCorp shares after doing your homework. But what about switching to another stock of LovelyInc? Actually it doesn't matter, since it's best to separate transactions. Sell your GreatCorp's stock when it has reached the desired profit margin or if it seems it is underperforming. Cut your losses! Make the calculations for LovelyCorp's shares without reference to GreatCorp's, and decide like that if it's worth while to buy." }, { "docid": "39927", "title": "", "text": "Because swing trading isn't the only reason to buy a stock, and it's not the only way to make money on a stock. I do not have the expertise to make advice one way or the other, but I personally I feel swing trading is one of the worse ways to invest in the stock market. To answer your specific questions: In the previous post, I outlined a naive trade intended to make $1,000 off a $10k buy, but it was shown this would likely fail, even if the stock price would have increased by 10% had I not placed the trade. Another way to state this is that my trade would disrupt the stock price, and not in my favor at all. So, that means I'd have to settle for a smaller trade. If I bought $100 worth of the stock, that size of a buy wouldn't be too disruptive. I might succeed and get $10 out of the trade (10% of $100). But my trade fee was $8 or so... To summarize, you are completely correct that even hoping for gains of 10% on a consistent basis (in other words, after every single trade!) is totally unrealistic. You already seem to understand that swing trading on low-volume stocks is pointless. But your last question was... So how do people make any significant money trading low volume stocks--if they even do? I assume money is made, since the stocks are bought and sold. I have some guesses, but I'd like to hear from the experts. ... and in a comment: Then if no one does make significant money trading these stocks...what are they doing there on the market? The answer is that the buying and selling is mostly likely not by swing traders. It's by investors that believe in the company. The company is on the market because the company believes public trading to be an advantageous position for them to receive capital investments, and there are people out there who think that transaction makes sense. In other words, real investing." }, { "docid": "182272", "title": "", "text": "Here's a simple example for a put, from both sides. Assume XYZ stock trades at $200 right now. Let's say John writes a $190 out of the money put on XYZ stock and sells this put to Abby for the premium, which is say $5. Assume the strike date, or date of settlement, is 6 months from now. Thus Abby is long one put option and John is short one put option (the writer of the option is short the option). On settlement date, let's assume two different scenarios: (1) If the price of the stock decreases by $50, then the put that Abby bought is 'in the money'. Abby's profit can be calculated as being strike price 190 - current stock price 150 - premium paid 5 = $35 So not including any transaction fees, that is a $35 dollar return on a $5 investment. (2) If the price of the stock increases by $50, then the put that Abby bought is worthless and her loss was 100%, or her entire $5 premium. For John, he made $5 in 6 months (in reality you need collateral and good credit to be able to write sizable option positions)." }, { "docid": "393842", "title": "", "text": "I had a coworker whose stock picking skills were clearly in the 1% level. I had a few hundred shares of EMC, bought at $10. When my coworker bought at $80, I quietly sold as it spiked to $100. It then crashed, as did many high tech stocks, and my friend sold his shares close to the $4 bottom advising that the company would go under. So I backed up the truck at $5, which for me, at the time, meant 1000 shares. This was one of nearly 50 trades I made over a good 10 year period. He was loud enough to hear throughout the office, and his trades, whether buy or sell, were 100% wrong. Individual stocks are very tough, as other posters have offered. That, combined with taking advice from those who probably had no business giving it. For the record, I am semi-retired. Not from stock picks, but from budgeting 20% of income to savings, and being indexed (S&P) with 90% of the funds. If there are options on your stock, you might sell calls for a few years, but that's a long term prospect. I'd sell and take my losses. Lesson learned. I hope." }, { "docid": "458730", "title": "", "text": "I assume you are talking about a publicly traded company listed on a major stock exchange and the buyer resides in the US. (Private companies and non-US locations can change the rules really a lot.) The short answer is no, because the company does not own the stock, various investors do. Each investor has to make an individual decision to sell or not sell. But there are complications. If an entity buys more than about 10% of the company they have to file a declaration with the SEC. The limit can be higher if they file an assertion that they are buying it solely for investment and are not seeking control of the company. If they are seeking control of the company then more paperwork must be filed and if they want to buy the whole company they may be required to make a tender offer where they offer to buy any and all shares at a specific price. If the company being bought is a financial institution, then the buyer may have to declare as a bank holding company and more regulations apply. The company can advise shareholders not to take the tender offer, but they cannot forbid it. So the short answer is, below 10% and for investment purposes only, it is cash and carry: Whoever has the cash gets to carry the stock away. Above that various regulations and declarations apply, but the company still does not have the power prevent the purchase in most circumstances." }, { "docid": "135216", "title": "", "text": "\"The market capitalization of a stock is the number of shares outstanding (of each stock class), times the price of last trade (of each stock class). In a liquid market (where there are lots of buyers and sellers at all price points), this represents the price that is between what people are bidding for the stock and what people are asking for the stock. If you offer any small amount more than the last price, there will be a seller, and if you ask any small amount less than the last price, there will be a buyer, at least for a small amount of stock. Thus, in a liquid market, everyone who owns the stock doesn't want to sell at least some of their stock for a bit less than the last trade price, and everyone who doesn't have the stock doesn't want to buy some of the stock for a bit more than the last trade price. With those assumptions, and a low-friction trading environment, we can say that the last trade value is a good midpoint of what people think one share is worth. If we then multiply it by the number of shares, we get an approximation of what the company is worth. In no way, shape or form does it not mean that there is 32 billion more invested in the company, or even used to purchase stock. There are situations where a 32 billion market cap swing could mean 32 billion more money was invested in the company: the company issues a pile of new shares, and takes in the resulting money. People are completely neutral about this gathering in of cash in exchange for dilluting shares. So the share price remains unchanged, the company gains 32 billion dollars, and there are now more shares outstanding. Now, in some sense, there is zero dollars currently invested in a stock; when you buy a stock, you no longer have the money, and the money goes to the person who no longer has the stock. The issue here is the use of the continuous tense of \"\"invested in\"\"; the investment was made at some point, but the money doesn't really stay in this continuous state of being. Unless you consider the investment liquid, and the option to take money out being implicit, it being a continuous action doesn't make much sense. Sometimes the money is invested in the company, when the company causes stocks to come into being and sells them. The owners of stocks has invested money in stocks in that they spent that money to buy the stocks, but the total sum of money ever spent on stocks for a given company is not really a useful value. The market capitalization is an approximation, which under the efficient market hypothesis (that markets find the correct price for things nearly instantly) is reasonably accurate, of the value the company has collectively to its shareholders. The efficient market hypothesis isn't accurate, but it is an acceptable rule of thumb. Now, this value -- market capitalization -- is arguably not the total value of a company: other stakeholders include bond holders, labour, management, various contract counter-parties, government and customers. Some companies are structured so that almost all value is captured not by the stock owners, but by contract counter-parties (this is sometimes used for hiding assets or debts). But for most large publically traded companies, it (in theory) shouldn't be far off.\"" }, { "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": "420118", "title": "", "text": "\"Once you buy stocks on X day of the month, the chances of stocks never actually going above and beyond your point of value on the chart are close to none. How about Enron? GM? WorldCom? Lehman Brothers? Those are just a few of the many stocks that went to 0. Even stock in solvent companies have an \"\"all-time high\"\" that it will never reach again. Please explain to my why my thought is [in]correct. It is based on flawed assumptions, specifically that stock always regain any losses from any point in time. This is not true. Stocks go up and down - sometimes that have losses that are never made up, even if they don't go bankrupt. If your argument is that you should cash out any gains regardless of size, and you will \"\"never lose\"\", I would argue that you might have very small gains in most cases, but there are still times where you are going to lose value and never regain it, and those losses can easily wipe out any gains you've made. Never bought stocks and if I try something stupid I'll lose my money, so why not ask the professionals first..? If you really believe that you \"\"can't lose\"\" in the stock market then do NOT buy individual stocks. You may as well buy a lottery ticket (not really, those are actually worthless). Stick to index funds or other stable investments that don't rely on the performance of a single company and its management. Yes, diversification reduces (not eliminates) risk of losses. Yes, chasing unreasonable gains can cause you to lose. But what is a \"\"reasonable gain\"\"? Why is your \"\"guaranteed\"\" X% gain better than the \"\"unreasonable\"\" Y% gain? How do you know what a \"\"reasonable\"\" gain for an individual stock is?\"" }, { "docid": "453256", "title": "", "text": "I bought 1000 shares of a $10 stock. When it doubled, I sold half, no need to be greedy. I watched the shares split 2 for one, and sold as it doubled and doubled again. In the end, I had $50,000 in cash pulled out and still had 100 shares. The shares are now worth $84K since they split 7 for one and trade near $120. Had I just kept the shares till now, no sales, I'd have 14,000 shares of Apple worth $1.68M dollars. $130K for an initial $10,000 investment is nothing to complain about, but yes, taking a profit can be the wrong thing. 25%? Was that all the potential the company had? There's one question to ask, not where is the price today compared to last year or two years ago, but what are the company's prospects. Is the reason I bought them still valid? Look at your investment each quarter as if you were making the decision that day. I agree, diversification is important, so the choice is only hold or sell, not to buy more of a good company, because there are others out there, and the one sane thing Cramer says that everyone should adhere to is to not put your eggs in one basket." }, { "docid": "399284", "title": "", "text": "Compensation information is available in the annual reports (10-k filings) which are available from the SEC EDGAR system or, generally, the company's website. Additionally, insider transactions are reported to the SEC so you can see when an insider buys or sells stock or exercises options received as compensation. Background: Nowadays board and officers seem to secretly steal money from shareholders through options and other ways. The stock buybacks that people think should boost the earnings per stock is in reality issued back to the management of the company and is a more stealth way to take money from the company compared to take higher salaries. ... How do you know this is happening if you don't know where to go to get the data needed to determine whether or not this is happening? Do you really think company share buybacks involve just the amount of shares to pay an executive? Apple has bought back $117,000,000,000 worth of shares from the fourth quarter 2012 through the second quarter 2016, and paid a pretty substantial amount in dividends over the same period. Do you really think these shares were simply handed to the executives? The huge pension funds and other huge investors would not let this slide for very long if it were even close to being true. Don't come to an unfounded conclusion then seek data to prove your position. Look at and analyze data THEN come to a conclusion." }, { "docid": "517873", "title": "", "text": "You sold a call, and have a risk if the stock rises. You bought a put and gain when the stock drops. You, sir, have a synthetic short position. It's Case 3 from your linked example: Suppose you own Long Stock and the company is going to report earnings but you’re going on vacation. How can you hedge your position without selling your stock? You can short the stock synthetically with options! Short Stock = Short Call + Long Put They conclude with the net zero remark, because the premise was an existing long position. A long plus this synthetic short results in a neutral set of positions (and the author's ability to go on vacation not concerned about any movement in the stock.)" } ]

[ { "docid": "338754", "title": "", "text": "Yes. Wash rules are only for losses." } ]

[ { "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": "545491", "title": "", "text": "\"How is that possible?? The mutual fund doesn't pay taxes and passes along the tax bill to shareholders via distributions would be the short answer. Your basis likely changed as now you have bought more shares. But I gained absolutely nothing from my dividend, so how is it taxable? The fund has either realized capital gains, dividends, interest or some other form of income that it has to pass along to shareholders as the fund doesn't pay taxes itself. Did I get screwed the first year because I bought into the fund too late in the year? Perhaps if you don't notice that your cost basis has changed here so that you'll have lower taxes when you sell your shares. Is anyone familiar with what causes this kind of situation of receiving a \"\"taxable dividend\"\" that doesn't actually increase the account balance? Yes, I am rather familiar with this. The point to understand is that the fund doesn't pay taxes itself but passes this along. The shareholders that hold funds in tax-advantaged accounts like 401ks and IRAs still get the distribution but are shielded from paying taxes on those gains at that point at time. Is it because I bought too late in the year? No, it is because you didn't know the fund would have a distribution of that size that year. Some funds can have negative returns yet still have a capital gains distribution if the fund experiences enough redemptions that the fund had to sell appreciated shares in a security. This is part of the risk in having stock funds in taxable accounts. Or is it because the fund had a negative return that year? No, it is because you don't understand how mutual funds and taxes work along with what distribution schedule the fund had. Do I wait until after the distribution date this year to buy? I'd likely consider it for taxable accounts yes. However, if you are buying in a tax-advantaged account then there isn't that same issue.\"" }, { "docid": "103362", "title": "", "text": "Levarge in simple terms is how of your own money to how much of borrowed money. So in 2008 Typical leverage ratios were Investment Banks 30:1 means that for every 1 Unit of Banks money [shareholders capital/ long term debts] there was 30 Units of borrowed money [from deposits/for other institutions/etc]. This is a very unstable situation as typically say you lent out 31 to someone else, half way through repayments, the depositors and other lends are asking you 30 back. You are sunk. Now lets say if you lent 31 to some one, but 30 was your moeny and 1 was from deposits/etc. Then you can anytime more easily pay back the 1 to the depositor. In day trading, usually one squares away the position the same day or within a short period. Hence say you want to buy something worth 1000 in the morning and are selling it say the same day. You are expecting the price to by 1005 and a gain 5. Now when you buy via your broker/trader, you may not be required to pay 1000. Normally one just needs to pay a margin money, typically 10% [varies from market to market, country to country]. So in the first case if you put 1000 and get by 5, you made a profit of 0.5%. However if you were to pay only 10 as margin money [rest 990 is assumed loan from your broker]. You sell at 1005, the broker deducts his 990, and you get 15. So technically on 10 you have made 5 more, ie 50% returns. So this is leveraging of 10:1. If say your broker allowed only 5% margin money, then you just need to pay 5 for the 1000 trade, get back 5. You have made a 100% profit, but the leveraging is 20:1. Now lets say at this high leveraging when you are selling you get only 990. So you still owe the broker 5, if you can't pay-up and if lot of other such people can't pay-up, then the broker will also go bankrupt and there is a huge risk. Hence although leveraging helps in quite a few cases, there is always an associated risk when things go wrong badly." }, { "docid": "535822", "title": "", "text": "The Federal Central Tax Office says you may not have to pay taxes in germany for capital gains. You may have to apply for a tax relief to prevent the tax from being collected. You very likely will have to pay whatever taxes there are in Hong Kong on capital gains. Since you use an US broker withholding tax may apply to you but this is a different question that has nothing to do with Germany or german stocks. To be sure you should contact a local expert on this topic. EDIT: I missed some informations that I found on the english site of the german Federal Central Tax Office homepage." }, { "docid": "212394", "title": "", "text": "\"I'll try to answer using your original example. First, let me restate your assumptions, slightly modified: The mutual fund has: Note that I say the \"\"mutual fund has\"\" those gains and losses. That's because they occur inside the mutual fund and not directly to you as a shareholder. I use \"\"realized\"\" gains and losses because the only gains and losses handled this way are those causes by actual asset (stock) sales within the fund (as directed by fund management). Changes in the value of fund holdings that are not sold are not included in this. As a holder of the fund, you learn the values of X, Y, and Z after the end of the year when the fund management reports the values. For gains, you will also typically see the values reported on your 1099-DIV under \"\"capital gains distributions\"\". For example, your 1099-DIV for year 3 will have the value Z for capital gains (besides reporting any ordinary dividends in another box). Your year 1 1099 will have $0 \"\"capital gains distributions\"\" shown because of the rule you highlighted in bold: net realized losses are not distributed. This capital loss however can later be used to the mutual fund holder's tax advantage. The fund's internal accounting carries forward the loss, and uses it to offset later realized gains. Thus your year 2 1099 will have a capital gain distribution of (Y-X), not Y, thus recognizing the loss which occurred. Thus the loss is taken into account. Note that for capital gains you, the holder, pay no tax in year 1, pay tax in year 2 on Y-X, and pay tax in year 3 on Z. All the above is the way it works whether or not you sell the shares immediately after the end of year 3 or you hold the shares for many more years. Whenever you do sell the shares, you will have a gain or loss, but that is different from the fund's realized losses we have been talking about (X, Y, and Z).\"" }, { "docid": "355972", "title": "", "text": "\"Will the bank be taxed on the $x received through selling the collateral? Why do you care? They will, of course, although their basis will be different. It is of no concern for you. What is your concern is that the write-off of the loan is taxed as ordinary income (as opposed to capital gains when you sell the stocks) for you. So when the bank seizes the stocks, they will also report to the IRS that they gave you the amount of money that you owed them (which they will \"\"give you\"\" and then put it on the account of the loan). So you get taxed on that amount as income. In addition, you will be taxed on the gains on the stocks, as giving them to the bank is considered a sale. So you may actually find yourself in a situation where you'd be paying taxes twice, once capital gains, and once as ordinary income, on the same money. I would strongly advise against this. If it is a real situation and not a hypothetical question - get a professional tax advice. I'm not a professional, talk to a CPA/EA licensed in your state.\"" }, { "docid": "213875", "title": "", "text": "All else being equal I wouldn't object to zero capital gains tax. Except not all else is equal. The differential between earned income and capital gains is enormous. This is more than enough to drive huge sums of money out of incomes and into capital gains. Private equity funds provides the simplest and most legal means of accomplishing this. There are more legally questionable methods, though not challenged at this time, involving carried interest. Let's say an employer has $1 they can choose to pay an employee or divert it into capital gains. If the effective tax rate that employee pays is 40% that leaves 60 cents going to that employee and doesn't even count the other cost of that employee through unemployment insurance, etc. If they divert it then at the top rate it becomes 85%. So, even without other cost considerations that becomes a 25% surcharge on treating it as wages. More than enough incentive freezing out wages as much as possible in favor of capital gains. Which is occurring on a large scale. So let's get back to the issues faced by granny selling her house. You say it's unfair for granny to pay 35% as opposed to 15% on the capital gains. Yet is it any more unfair than granny paying 35% on her earned income all those years she paid for the house? Wouldn't she be much better off if all those years she paid less on her earned income, at the expense of paying more on her capital gains, all with essentially the same overall federal tax receipts? So in essence you are arguing that she should be screwed less on her one time capital gains in favor of screwing her many many times that amount over the years leading up to that sale. Ouch. So let's look at the difference between capital gains and income at the investor level. You have a wage earner that gets out of bed every morning and works at the beckoning of someone else daily. We'll suppose they are it the 35% tax bracket, under $400k. Is it more fair to charge them 35% than it it the person who invested their money and gets their paycheck while watching I Love Lucy reruns? I know it's almost never that easy but really, if working 40 or 80 or even 100 hours per week doesn't deserve the same break how do you justify it for the person who simply purchased their future income? Labor is after all hired to help produce capital goods. How is their contribution to those capital goods not part and parcel to the capital gains? Even with these issues I still wouldn't have such a problem if markets, including wage and capital ratios, acted independently of these effective tax rates. But that notion is absurd, even if doing so require some illegal maneuvers. Which in many cases do not. So yeah, I find your argument to be specious and quiet arbitrary at every level." }, { "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": "361482", "title": "", "text": "Stock awards by employers are treated and taxed as salary. I.e.: you pay ordinary rate income tax, FICA taxes, State taxes etc. The fact that you got your salary in shares and not cash is irrelevant for tax purposes. Once you got the shares and paid your taxes on them, the treatment is the same as if you got the salary and immediately bought the shares. Holding period for capital gains tax purposes starts at the time you paid your taxes on the award, which is the time at which you get full ownership (i.e.: vesting time, for the restricted stocks). When you sell these stocks - you treat the sale as any other stock sale: you check the holding period for capital gains tax rates, and you do not pay (or get refund) any FICA taxes on the sales transaction. So bottom line: You got $10K salary and you bought $10K worth of company stock, and you sold it at $8K half a year later. You have $10K wages income and $2K short term capital loss." }, { "docid": "326559", "title": "", "text": "The link provided by DumbCoder (below) is only relevant to UK resident investors and does not apply if you live in Malaysia. I noticed that in a much older question you asked a similar question about taxes on US stocks, so I'll try and answer both situations here. The answer is almost the same for any country you decide to invest in. As a foreign investor, the country from which you purchase stock cannot charge you tax on either income or capital gains. Taxation is based on residency, so even when you purchase foreign stock its the tax laws of Malaysia (as your country of residence) that matter. At the time of writing, Malaysia does not levy any capital gains tax and there is no income tax charged on dividends so you won't have to declare or pay any tax on your stocks regardless of where you buy them from. The only exception to this is Dividend Withholding Tax, which is a special tax taken by the government of the country you bought the stock from before it is paid to your account. You do not need to declare this tax as it his already been taken by the time you receive your dividend. The rate of DWT that will be withheld is unique to each country. The UK does not have any withholding tax so you will always receive the full dividend on UK stocks. The withholding tax rate for the US is 30%. Other countries vary. For most countries that do charge a withholding tax, it is possible to have this reduced to 15% if there is a double taxation treaty in place between the two countries and all of the following are true: Note: Although the taxation rules of both countries are similar, I am a resident of Singapore not Malaysia so I can't speak from first hand experience, but current Malaysia tax rates are easy to find online. The rest of this information is common to any non-US/UK resident investor (as long as you're not a US person)." }, { "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": "233248", "title": "", "text": "(I'm assuming the tag of United-states is accurate) Yes, the remaining amount is tax free -- at the current price. If you sell at exactly the original price, there is no capital gain, no capital loss. So you've already payed the taxes. If you sell and there is a capital gain of $3000, then you will pay taxes on the $3000. If 33% is your marginal tax rate, and if you held the stock for less than a year, then you will keep $7000 and pay taxes of $1000. Somehow, I doubt your marginal tax rate is 33%. If you hold the stock for a year after eTrade sold some for you to pay taxes, then you will pay 15% on the gain -- or $450. eTrade sold the shares to pay the taxes generated by the income. Yes, those shares were considered income. If you sell and have a loss, well, life sucks. However, if you sell something else, you can use the loss to offset the other gain. So if you sell stock A for a loss of $3000, and sell stock B at a gain of $4000, then you pay taxes on the net of $1000." }, { "docid": "371717", "title": "", "text": "\"Document how you came to have the stuff in the first place. First to defend against potential government inquiry; and second to establish that you held the asset more than one year, so you qualify for long-term capital gains rate. I wouldn't sell it privately all at once, if you can avoid it. If you can prove you held it more than a year, you should pay the long-term capital gains tax rate, which is fairly low. You'll keep most of it. A huge windfall often goes very badly. People don't change their financial habits, burn through their winnings shockingly fast, overspend it, and wind up deep in debt. At the end of the crazy train, their lives end up worse. That wasn't your question, but you'll do better if you're on guard for that, with good planning and a desire to invest it in things which give you deferred income in the future. That's the cooler thing, when your investments mean you don't have to go to work! I don't mean donate ALL of it to charity. But feel free. If you hold a security more than one year, and donate it to charity, you get a tax deduction for the appreciated value (even though the security didn't actually cost you that). (link) Do not convert the BTC to cash then donate the cash. Donate it as BTC. Your tax deduction works against your highest tax bracket. If you are paying in a 28% tax bracket (your next $100 of income has $28 tax), then for every $100 of charitable donation, you get $28 back on Federal. It does the same to state tax, and you also avoid the 10-15% capital gains tax because you didn't sell the securities. Do your 1040 both ways and note the difference.***** Your charitable deduction of appreciated securities is capped at 30% of AGI. Any excess will carryover and becomes a tax deduction for the next year, and it can carryover for several years. ** Use a donor-advised fund. If you have are donating more than $5000, you don't need to search for a charity that will take Bitcoin, and you also don't need to pick a charity now. Instead, open a special type of giving account called a Donor-Advised Fund. The DAF, itself, is a charity. It specializes in accepting complex donations and liquidating them into cash. The cash credits to your giving account. You take the tax deduction in the year you give to the DAF. Then, when you want to give to a charity, you tell the DAF to donate on your behalf***. You can tell them to give on your behalf anonymously, or merely conceal your address so you don't get the endless charity junk mail. The DAF lets you hold the money in index funds, so your \"\"charity nest egg\"\" can grow with the market. Mine has more than doubled thanks to the market. This money is no longer yours at this point; you can't give it back to yourself, only to licensed charities. The Fidelity Donor Advised Fund makes a big thing of taking Bitcoin, and I really like them. **** I love my DAF, and it has been a charitable-giving workhorse. It turns you into a philanthropist, and that changes you life in ways I cannot describe. Certainly makes me more level-headed about money. Lottery winner syndrome is just not a risk for me (partly because I'm now on the board of charities, and oversee an endowment.) Donating generally will reduce suspicion (criminals don't do that), but donating to a DAF even moreso. Since the DAF would have to return ill-gotten gains, they're involved. Their lawyers will back you up. The prosecutor is up against a billion dollar corporation instead of just you. With Fidelity particularly, Bitcoin is a crusade for them, and their lawyers know how to defend Bitcoin. A Fidelity DAF is a good play for that reason alone IMO. ** The gory details: Presumably you are donating to regular charities or a Donor Advised Fund, and these are \"\"50% limit organizations\"\". Since it's capital gains, you have a 30% limit. If your donation is more than 30% of AGI, or if you have carryover from last year, you use Worksheet 2 in Publication 526. You plug your donations into line 4, then the worksheet grinds through all the math and shows what part you deduct this year and what part you carryover to the next year. *** I specifically asked managers at two DAFs whether they were OK with someone donating a complex asset to the DAF, and immediately giving the entire cash amount to a charity. The DAF doesn't get any fees if you do that. They said not only are they OK with it, most of their donors do exactly that and most DAF accounts are empty. They make it on the 0.6% a year custodial fee on the other accounts, and charitable giving to them. Mind you, you can only donate to 501C3 type charities, what IRS calls \"\"50% limit organizations\"\". This actually protects you from donating to organizations who lie about their status. **** I'm not with Fidelity, but I am a satisfied DAF customer. The DAF funds its overhead by deducting 0.6% per year from your giving account. If you invest the funds in a mutual fund within the DAF, that investment pays the 0.08% to 1.5% expense ratio of the fund. I can live with that. ***** I just Excel'd the value of donating $100 of appreciated security instead of taking it as capital gains income. 28% Fed tax, 15% Fed cap gains, 8% state tax on both. Take the $100 as income, pay $23 in cap gains tax. Donate $100 in securities, the $23 tax goes away since you didn't sell it. Really. The $100 charitable deduction offsets $100 in income, also saving you $36 in regular income tax. Net tax savings $59. However you lost the $100! So you are net $41 poorer. It costs you $41 to donate $100 to charity. This gets better in higher brackets.\"" }, { "docid": "444405", "title": "", "text": "Here's how capital gains are totaled: Long and Short Term. Capital gains and losses are either long-term or short-term. It depends on how long the taxpayer holds the property. If the taxpayer holds it for one year or less, the gain or loss is short-term. Net Capital Gain. If a taxpayer’s long-term gains are more than their long-term losses, the difference between the two is a net long-term capital gain. If the net long-term capital gain is more than the net short-term capital loss, the taxpayer has a net capital gain. So your net long-term gains (from all investments, through all brokers) are offset by any net short-term loss. Short term gains are taxed separately at a higher rate. I'm trying to avoid realizing a long term capital gain, but at the same time trade the stock. If you close in the next year, one of two things will happen - either the stock will go down, and you'll have short-term gains on the short, or the stock will go up, and you'll have short-term losses on the short that will offset the gains on the stock. So I don;t see how it reduces your tax liability. At best it defers it." }, { "docid": "41052", "title": "", "text": "I agree with Joe that you seem to have your stuff together. However I can't disagree more otherwise. You are getting a loan at such a cheap rate that it would be almost impossible to not substantially beat that rate over the next 15-20 years. You paying off your home early might give you warm fuzzy feeling but would make me queezy. This is a MONEY website. Make money. For our purposes let's say your home is worth 500k, you can get a fixed rate loan at 3% over 30 years, and you can earn 7% on your investments per year. Note that I have earned 12% on mine the past 15 years so I am being pretty conservative. So let's not get into your other stuff because that is fine. Let's focus just on that 500k - your house. Interest only Loan for the whole thing- The flip side is you pay off your house. Your house could be worth 400K in 30 years. Probably not but neighborhood could decline, house not kept up, or whatever. Your house is not a risk-free investment. And it fluctuate in many areas more than the stock market. But let's just say your area stays OK or normal. In 30 years you can expect your house to be worth somewhere between 700k to 1.5 million. Let's just say you did GREAT with your house. Guess what? At 1.5 million selling price you still lost 1.5 million because of your decision plus sunk your money into a less liquid option. Let the bank take the risk on your house price. The warm fuzzy feeling will be there when you realize you could rebuy your house two times over in 6-7 years. Note: I know my example doesn't use your exact numbers. I am just showing what your true cost is of making a decision in the most extreme way. I am guessing you have great credit and might be able to find an all interest loan at 3%. So not doing this is costing you 1.5 million over 30 years. Given a lower home price after 30 years or a higher rate of return this easily be much more. IF you earned 12% over the 30 year period you would be costing yourself 16 million - do the math. Now you are talking about doing something in-between. Which means you will basically have the same risk factors with less return." }, { "docid": "533727", "title": "", "text": "\"First, to mention one thing - better analysis calls for analyzing a range of outcomes, not just one; assigning a probability on each, and comparing the expected values. Then moderating the choice based on risk tolerance. But now, just look at the outcome or scenario of 3% and time frame of 2 days. Let's assume your investable capital is exactly $1000 (multiply everything by 5 for $5,000, etc.). A. Buy stock: the value goes to 103; your investment goes to $1030; net return is $30, minus let's say $20 commission (you should compare these between brokers; I use one that charges 9.99 plus a trivial government fee). B. Buy an call option at 100 for $0.40 per share, with an expiration 30 days away (December 23). This is a more complicated. To evaluate this, you need to estimate the movement of the value of a 100 call, $0 in and out of the money, 30 days remaining, to the value of a 100 call, $3 in the money, 28 days remaining. That movement will vary based on the volatility of the underlying stock, an advanced topic; but there are techniques to estimate that, which become simple to use after you get the hang of it. At any rate, let's say that the expected movement of the option price in this scenario is from $0.40 to $3.20. Since you bought 2500 share options for $1000, the gain would be 2500 times 2.8 = 7000. C. Buy an call option at 102 for $0.125 per share, with an expiration 30 days away (December 23). To evaluate this, you need to estimate the movement of the value of a 102 call, $2 out of the money, 30 days remaining, to the value of a 102 call, $1 in the money, 28 days remaining. That movement will vary based on the volatility of the underlying stock, an advanced topic; but there are techniques to estimate that, which become simple to use after you get the hang of it. At any rate, let's say that the expected movement of the option price in this scenario is from $0.125 to $ 1.50. Since you bought 8000 share options for $1000, the gain would be 8000 times 1.375 = 11000. D. Same thing but starting with a 98 call. E. Same thing but starting with a 101 call expiring 60 days out. F., ... Etc. - other option choices. Again, getting the numbers right for the above is an advanced topic, one reason why brokerages warn you that options are risky (if you do your math wrong, you can lose. Even doing that math right, with a bad outcome, loses). Anyway you need to \"\"score\"\" as many options as needed to find the optimal point. But back to the first paragraph, you should then run the whole analysis on a 2% gain. Or 5%. Or 5% in 4 days instead of 2 days. Do as many as are fruitful. Assess likelihoods. Then pull the trigger and buy it. Try these techniques in simulation before diving in! Please! One last point, you don't HAVE to understand how to evaluate projected option price movements if you have software that does that for you. I'll punt on that process, except to mention it. Get the general idea? Edit P.S. I forgot to mention that brokers need love for handling Options too. Check those commission rates in your analysis as well.\"" }, { "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": "364099", "title": "", "text": "Certainly, paying off the mortgage is better than doing nothing with the money. But it gets interesting when you consider keeping the mortgage and investing the money. If the mortgage rate is 5% and you expect >5% returns from stocks or some other investment, then it might make sense to seek those higher returns. If you expect the same 5% return from stocks, keeping the mortgage and investing the money can still be more tax-efficient. Assuming a marginal tax rate of 30%, the real cost of mortgage interest (in terms of post-tax money) is 3.5%*. If your investment results in long-term capital gains taxed at 15%, the real rate of growth of your post-tax money would be 4.25%. So in post-tax terms, your rate of gain is greater than your rate of loss. On the other hand, paying off the mortgage is safer than investing borrowed money, so doing so might be more appropriate for the risk-averse. * I'm oversimplifying a bit by assuming the deduction doesn't change your marginal tax rate." }, { "docid": "496820", "title": "", "text": "When you invest (say $1000) in (say 100 shares) of a mutual fund at $10 per share, and the price of the shares changes, you do not have a capital gain or loss, and you do not have to declare anything to the IRS or make any entry on any line on Form 1040 or tell anyone else about it either. You can brag about it at parties if the share price has gone up, or weep bitter tears into your cocktail if the price has gone down, but the IRS not only does not care, but it will not let you deduct the paper loss or pay taxes on the paper gain. What you put down on Form 1040 Schedules B and D is precisely what the mutual fund will tell you on Form 1099-DIV (and Form 1099-B), no more, no less. If you did not report any of these amounts on your previous tax returns, you need to file amended tax returns, both Federal as well as State, A stock mutual fund invests in stocks and the fund manager may buy and sell some stocks during the course of the year. If he makes a profit, that money will be distributed to the share holders of the mutual fund. That money can be re-invested in more shares of the same mutual fund or taken as cash (and possibly invested in some other fund). This capital gain distribution is reported to you on Form 1099-DIV and you have to report sit on your tax return even if you re-invested in more share of the same mutual fund, and the amount of the distribution is taxable income to you. Similarly, if the stocks owned by the mutual fund pay dividends, those will be passed on to you as a dividend distribution and all the above still applies. You can choose to reinvest, etc, the amount will be reported to you on Form 1099-DIV, and you need to report it to the IRS and include it in your taxable income. If the mutual fund manager loses money in the buying and selling he will not tell you that he lost money but it will be visible as a reduction in the price of the shares. The loss will not be reported to you on Form 1099-DIV and you cannot do anything about it. Especially important, you cannot declare to the IRS that you have a loss and you cannot deduct the loss on your income tax returns that year. When you finally sell your shares in the mutual fund, you will have a gain or loss that you can pay taxes on or deduct. Say the mutual fund paid a dividend of $33 one year and you re-invested the money into the mutual fund, buying 3 shares at the then cost of $11 per share. You declare the $33 on your tax return that year and pay taxes on it. Two years later, you sell all 103 shares that you own for $10.50 per share. Your total investment was $1000 + $33 = $1033. You get $1081.50 from the fund, and you will owe taxes on $1081.50 - $1033 = $48.50. You have a profit of $50 on the 100 shares originally bought and a loss of $1.50 on the 3 shares bought for $11: the net result is a gain of $48.50. You do not pay taxes on $81.50 as the profit from your original $1000 investment; you pay taxes only on $48.50 (remember that you already paid taxes on the $33). The mutual fund will report on Form 1099-B that you sold 103 shares for $1081.50 and that you bought the 103 shares for an average price of $1033/103 = $10.029 per share. The difference is taxable income to you. If you sell the 103 shares for $9 per share (say), then you get $927 out of an investment of $1033 for a capital loss of $106. This will be reported to you on Form 1099-B and you will enter the amounts on Schedule D of Form 1040 as a capital loss. What you actually pay taxes on is the net capital gain, if any, after combining all your capital gains and losses for the year. If the net is a loss, you can deduct up to $3000 in a year, and carry the rest forward to later years to offset capital gains in later years. But, your unrealized capital gains or losses (those that occur because the mutual fund share price goes up and down like a yoyo while you grin or grit your teeth and hang on to your shares) are not reported or deducted or taxed anywhere. It is more complicated when you don't sell all the shares you own in the mutual fund or if you sell shares within one year of buying them, but let's stick to simple cases." } ]

[ { "docid": "14364", "title": "", "text": "Yes, you would have to report the gain. It is not relevant that you traded the stock previously, you still made a profit on the trade-at-hand. Imagine if for some reason this type of trade were exempt. Investors could follow the short term swings of volatile stocks completely tax-free." } ]

[ { "docid": "159840", "title": "", "text": "In addition to the answer from CQM, let me answer your 'am I missing anything?' question. Then I'll talk about how your approach of simplifying this is making it both harder and easier for you. Last I'll show what my model for this would look like, but if you aren't capable of stacking this up yourself, then you REALLY shouldn't be borrowing 10,000 to try to make money on the margin. Am I missing anything? YES. You're forgetting (1) taxes, specifically income tax, and (2) sales commissions//transaction fees. On the first: You have not considered anything in your financial model for taxes. You should include at least 25% of your expected returns going to taxes, because anything that you buy... and then sell within 12 months... is taxed as income. Not capital gains. On the second: you will incur sales commissions and/or transaction fees depending on the brokerage you are using for your plan. These tend to vary widely, but I would expect to spend at least $25 per sale. So if I were building out this model I would think that your break-even would have to at least cover: monthly interest + monthly principal payment income tax when sold commissions and broker's fees every time you sell holdings On over-simplifying: You have the right idea with thinking about both interest and principal in trying to sketch this out. But as I mentioned above, you're making this both harder and easier for yourself. You are making it harder because you are doing the math wrong. The actual payment for this loan (assuming it is a normal loan) can be found most easily with the PMT function in Excel: =PMT(rate,NPER,PV,FV)... =PMT(.003, 24, -10000, 0). That returns a monthly payment (of principal + interest) of 432.47. So you actually are over-calculating the payment by $14/month with your ballpark approach. However, you didn't actually have all the factors in the model to begin with, so that doesn't matter much. You are making it artificially easier because you have not thought about the impact of repaying principal. What I mean is this--in your question you indicate: I'm guessing the necessary profit is just the total interest on this loan = 0.30%($10000)(24) = $720 USD ? So I'll break even on this loan - if and only if - I make $720 from stocks over 24 months (so the rate of return is 720/(10000 + 720) = 6.716%). This sounds great-- all you need is a 6.716% total return across two years. But, assuming this is a normal loan and not an 'interest-only' loan, you have to get rid of your capital a little bit at a time to pay back the loan. In essence, you will pay back 1/3 of your principal the first year... and then you have to keep making the same Fixed interest + principal payments out of a smaller base of capital. So for the first few months you can cover the interest easily, but by the end you have to be making phenomenal returns to cover it. Here is how I would build a model for it (I actually did... and your breakeven is about 1.019% per month. At that outstanding 12.228% annual return you would be earning a whopping $4.) At least as far as the variables are concerned, you need to be considering: Your current capital balance (because month 1 you may have $10,000 but month 2 you have just 9,619 after paying back some principal). Your rate of return (if you do this in Excel you can play with it some, but you should save the time and just invest somewhere else.) Your actual return that month (rate of return * existing capital balance). Loan payment = 432 for the parameters you gave earlier. Income tax = (Actual Return) * (.25). With this kind of loan, you're not actually making enough to preserve the 10,000 capital and you're selling everything you've gained each month. Commission = ($25 per month) ... assuming that covers your trade fees and broker commissions. I guarantee you that this is not the deal breaker in the model, so don't get excited if you think I'm over-estimating this and you realize that Scottrade or somewhere will let you have trades at $7.95 each. Monthly ending balance == next month's starting capital balance. Stack it all up in Excel for 24 months and see for yourself if you like. The key thing you left out is that you're repaying each month out of capital that you'd like to use to invest with. This makes you need much higher returns. Even if your initial description wasn't clear and this is an interest-only loan, you're still looking at a rate of about 7.6% annually that you need to hit in order to just break even on the costs of holding the loan and transferring your gains into cash." }, { "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": "314342", "title": "", "text": "\"Many individual states, counties, and cities have their own income taxes, payroll taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, etc., you will need to consult your state and local government websites for information about additional taxes that apply based on your locale. Wages, Salaries, Tips, Cash bonuses and other taxable employee pay, Strike benefits, Long-term disability, Earnings from self employment Earned income is subject to payroll taxes such as: Earned income is also subject to income taxes which are progressively higher depending on the amount earned minus tax credits, exemptions, and/or deductions depending on how you file. There are 7 tax rates that get progressively larger as your income rises but only applies to the income in each bracket. 10% for the first 18,650 (2017) through 39.6% for any income above 470,700. The full list of rates is in the above linked article about payroll taxes. Earned income is required for contributions to an IRA. You cannot contribute more to an IRA than you have earned in a given year. Interest, Ordinary Dividends, Short-term Capital Gains, Retirement income (pensions, distributions from tax deferred accounts, social security), Unemployment benefits, Worker's Compensation, Alimony/Child support, Income earned while in prison, Non-taxable military pay, most rental income, and S-Corp passthrough income Ordinary income is taxed the same as earned income with the exception that social security taxes do not apply. This is the \"\"pure taxable income\"\" referred to in the other linked question. Dividends paid by US Corporations and qualified foreign corporations to stock-holders (that are held for a certain period of time before the dividend is paid) are taxed at the Long-term Capital Gains rate explained below. Ordinary dividends like the interest earned in your bank account are included with ordinary income. Stocks, Bonds, Real estate, Carried interest -- Held for more than a year Income from assets that increase in value while being held for over a year. Long term capital gains justified by the idea that they encourage people to hold stock and make long term investments rather than buying and then quickly reselling for a short-term profit. The lower tax rates also reflect the fact that many of these assets are already taxed as they are appreciating in value. Real-estate is usually taxed through local property taxes. Equity in US corporations realized by rising stock prices and dividends that are returned to stock holders reflect earnings from a corporation that are already taxed at the 35% Corporate tax rate. Taxing Capital gains as ordinary income would be a second tax on those same profits. Another problem with Long-term capital gains tax is that a big portion of the gains for assets held for multiple decades are not real gains. Inflation increases the price of assets held for longer periods, but you are still taxed on the full gain even if it would be a loss when inflation is calculated. Capital gains are also taxed differently depending on your income level. If you are in the 10% or 15% brackets then Long-term capital gains are assessed at 0%. If you are in the 25%, 28%, 33%, or 35% brackets, they are assessed at 15%. Only those in the 39.6% bracket pay 20%. Capital assets sold at a profit held for less than a year Income from buying and selling any assets such as real-estate, stock, bonds, etc., that you hold for less than a year before selling. After adding up all gains and losses during the year, the net gain is taxed as ordinary income. Collectibles held for more than a year are not considered capital assets and are still taxed at ordinary income rates.\"" }, { "docid": "57646", "title": "", "text": "You can't actually transfer shares directly unless they were obtained as part of an employee share scheme - see the answers to questions 19 and 20 on this page: http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/isa/faqs.htm#19 Q. Can I put shares from my employee share scheme into my ISA? A. You can transfer any shares you get from into a stocks and shares component of an ISA without having to pay Capital Gains Tax - provided your ISA manager agrees to take them. The value of the shares at the date of transfer counts towards the annual limit. This means you can transfer up to £11,520 worth of shares in the tax year 2013-14 (assuming that you make no other subscriptions to ISAs, in those years). You must transfer the shares within 90 days from the day they cease to be subject to the Plan, or (for approved SAYE share option schemes) 90 days of the exercise of option date. Your employer should be able to tell you more. Q. Can I put windfall or inherited shares in my ISA? A. No. You can only transfer shares you own into an ISA if they have come from an employee share scheme. Otherwise, the ISA manager must purchase shares on the open market. The situation is the same if you have shares that you have inherited. You are not able to transfer them into an ISA." }, { "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": "535822", "title": "", "text": "The Federal Central Tax Office says you may not have to pay taxes in germany for capital gains. You may have to apply for a tax relief to prevent the tax from being collected. You very likely will have to pay whatever taxes there are in Hong Kong on capital gains. Since you use an US broker withholding tax may apply to you but this is a different question that has nothing to do with Germany or german stocks. To be sure you should contact a local expert on this topic. EDIT: I missed some informations that I found on the english site of the german Federal Central Tax Office homepage." }, { "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": "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": "447651", "title": "", "text": "Is the remaining amount tax free? As in, if the amount shown (which I can sell) on etrade is $5000 then if I sell the entire shares will my bank account be increased by $5000? The stocks they sell are withholding. So let's say you had $7000 of stock and they sold $2000 for taxes. That leaves you with $5000. But the actual taxes paid might be more or less than $2000. They go in the same bucket as the rest of your withholding. If too much is withheld, you get a refund. Too little and you owe them. Way too little and you have to pay penalties. At the end of the year, you will show $7000 as income and $2000 as withheld for taxes from that transaction. You may also have a capital gain if the stock increases in price. They do not generally withhold on stock sales, as they don't necessarily know what was your gain and what was your loss. You usually have to handle that yourself. The main point that I wanted to make is that the sale is not tax free. It's just that you already had tax withheld. It may or may not be enough." }, { "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": "552138", "title": "", "text": "\"The country from which you purchase stock cannot charge you tax on either income or capital gains. Taxation is based on residency, so even when you purchase foreign stock its the tax laws of Malaysia (as your country of residence) that matter. At the time of writing, Malaysia does not levy any capital gains tax and there is no income tax charged on dividends so you won't have to declare or pay any tax on your stocks regardless of where you buy them from. The only exception to this is Dividend Withholding Tax, which is a special tax taken by the government of the country you bought the stock from before it is paid to your account. You do not need to declare this tax as it his already been taken by the time you receive your dividend. The US withholding tax rate on dividends is 30%, although this can be reduced to 15% if there as a tax treaty in place between the US and your country of residence. Malaysia does have a double taxation agreement with the US (see here: http://www.mida.gov.my/env3/index.php?page=double-taxation-agreement) but it is flagged as a \"\"limited\"\" agreement. You'd need to find the full text of the agreement to see whether a reduced rate of dividend withholding tax would be available in the Malaysia/US treaty. See my other answer for more details on withholding taxes and how to partially reclaim under a double tax treaty: What is the dividend tax rate for UK stock Note: Although the taxation rules of both countries are similar, I am a resident of Singapore not Malaysia so I can't speak from first hand experience, but current Malaysia tax rates are easy to find online. The rest of this information is common to any non-US/UK resident investor (as long as you're not a US person).\"" }, { "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": "100128", "title": "", "text": "Here's an excerpt from the Charles Schwab website which I think will help evaluate your position: The simple answer to your question is no, the value of a gift of stock for gift tax liability is NOT the donor's cost basis, but rather the fair market value of the stock at the time the gift is given. So let's say you purchased 100 shares of XYZ stock at $50 a share. Your cost basis is $5,000. Now the stock is $80 a share and you give it as a gift. The value of your gift for gift tax purposes is $8,000. In 2015, you can give up to $14,000 to an unlimited number of individuals each year without paying a gift tax or even reporting the gifts. If you give over that amount to any individual, however, you must report the gift on your tax return, but you don't have to pay taxes until you give away more than the current lifetime limit of $5,430,000—for the amount above and beyond $14,000 per person per year. So in the example above, there would be no gift tax liability. However, if the stock happened to be $150 a share, the value of the gift would be $15,000. You'd then have to report it and $1,000 would be applied toward your $5,430,000 lifetime exclusion. You will need to pay a gift tax on the current value of the stock. I'm not familiar with the tax laws in India, but if your brother was in the US, he wouldn't pay taxes on that gift until he sells the stock. The recipient doesn’t have to worry about gift taxes. It's when the recipient decides to sell the stock that the issue of valuation comes up—for income taxes. And this is where things can get a bit more complicated. In general, when valuing a gift of stock for capital gains tax liability, it's the donor's cost basis and holding period that rules. As an example, let's say you receive a gift of stock from your grandfather. He bought it for $10 a share and it's worth $15 a share on the day you receive it. If you then sell the stock, whether for a gain or a loss, your cost basis will be the same as your grandfather’s: $10 per share. Sell it at $25 and you'll pay tax (at the short- or long-term rate, depending on how long he owned the stock) on a gain of $15 a share; sell it at $8 and your capital loss will be $2 a share. Ultimately, with a gift this large that also crosses international borders, you really should hire a professional who is experienced with these types of transactions. Their fees/commission will be completely offset by the savings in risk and paperwork. http://www.schwab.com/public/schwab/nn/articles/How-Do-You-Value-a-Gift-of-Stock-It-Depends-on-Whether-You-re-the-Giver-or-the-Receiver" }, { "docid": "62966", "title": "", "text": "when investing in index funds Index fund as the name suggests invests in the same proportion of the stocks that make up the index. You can choose a Index Fund that tracks NYSE or S&P etc. You cannot select individual companies. Generally these are passively managed, i.e. just follow the index composition via automated algorithms resulting in lower Fund Manager costs. is it possible to establish an offshore company Yes it is possible and most large organization or High Net-worth individuals do this. Its expensive and complicated for ordinary individuals. One needs and army of International Tax Consultants / International Lawyers / etc but do I have to pay taxes from the capital gains at the end of the year? Yes Canada taxes on world wide income and you would have to pay taxes on gains in Canada. Note depending on your tax residency status in US, you may have to pay tax in US as well." }, { "docid": "403701", "title": "", "text": "This is really an extended comment on the last paragraph of @BenMiller's answer. When (the manager of) a mutual fund sells securities that the fund holds for a profit, or receives dividends (stock dividends, bond interest, etc.), the fund has the option of paying taxes on that money (at corporate rates) and distributing the rest to shareholders in the fund, or passing on the entire amount (categorized as dividends, qualified dividends, net short-term capital gains, and net long-term capital gains) to the shareholders who then pay taxes on the money that they receive at their own respective tax rates. (If the net gains are negative, i.e. losses, they are not passed on to the shareholders. See the last paragraph below). A shareholder doesn't have to reinvest the distribution amount into the mutual fund: the option of receiving the money as cash always exists, as does the option of investing the distribution into a different mutual fund in the same family, e.g. invest the distributions from Vanguard's S&P 500 Index Fund into Vanguard's Total Bond Index Fund (and/or vice versa). This last can be done without needing a brokerage account, but doing it across fund families will require the money to transit through a brokerage account or a personal account. Such cross-transfers can be helpful in reducing the amounts of money being transferred in re-balancing asset allocations as is recommended be done once or twice a year. Those investing in load funds instead of no-load funds should keep in mind that several load funds waive the load for re-investment of distributions but some funds don't: the sales charge for the reinvestment is pure profit for the fund if the fund was purchased directly or passed on to the brokerage if the fund was purchased through a brokerage account. As Ben points out, a shareholder in a mutual fund must pay taxes (in the appropriate categories) on the distributions from the fund even though no actual cash has been received because the entire distribution has been reinvested. It is worth keeping in mind that when the mutual fund declares a distribution (say $1.22 a share), the Net Asset Value per share drops by the same amount (assuming no change in the prices of the securities that the fund holds) and the new shares issued are at this lower price. That is, there is no change in the value of the investment: if you had $10,000 in the fund the day before the distribution was declared, you still have $10,000 after the distribution is declared but you own more shares in the fund than you had previously. (In actuality, the new shares appear in your account a couple of days later, not immediately when the distribution is declared). In short, a distribution from a mutual fund that is re-invested leads to no change in your net assets, but does increase your tax liability. Ditto for a distribution that is taken as cash or re-invested elsewhere. As a final remark, net capital losses inside a mutual fund are not distributed to shareholders but are retained within the fund to be written off against future capital gains. See also this previous answer or this one." }, { "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": "266898", "title": "", "text": "Capital losses do mirror capital gains within their holding periods. An asset or investment this is certainly held for a year into the day or less, and sold at a loss, will create a short-term capital loss. A sale of any asset held for over a year to your day, and sold at a loss, will create a loss that is long-term. When capital gains and losses are reported from the tax return, the taxpayer must first categorize all gains and losses between long and short term, and then aggregate the sum total amounts for every single regarding the four categories. Then the gains that are long-term losses are netted against each other, therefore the same is done for short-term gains and losses. Then your net gain that is long-term loss is netted against the net short-term gain or loss. This final net number is then reported on Form 1040. Example Frank has the following gains and losses from his stock trading for the year: Short-term gains - $6,000 Long-term gains - $4,000 Short-term losses - $2,000 Long-term losses - $5,000 Net short-term gain/loss - $4,000 ST gain ($6,000 ST gain - $2,000 ST loss) Net long-term gain/loss - $1,000 LT loss ($4,000 LT gain - $5,000 LT loss) Final net gain/loss - $3,000 short-term gain ($4,000 ST gain - $1,000 LT loss) Again, Frank can only deduct $3,000 of final net short- or long-term losses against other types of income for that year and must carry forward any remaining balance." }, { "docid": "41052", "title": "", "text": "I agree with Joe that you seem to have your stuff together. However I can't disagree more otherwise. You are getting a loan at such a cheap rate that it would be almost impossible to not substantially beat that rate over the next 15-20 years. You paying off your home early might give you warm fuzzy feeling but would make me queezy. This is a MONEY website. Make money. For our purposes let's say your home is worth 500k, you can get a fixed rate loan at 3% over 30 years, and you can earn 7% on your investments per year. Note that I have earned 12% on mine the past 15 years so I am being pretty conservative. So let's not get into your other stuff because that is fine. Let's focus just on that 500k - your house. Interest only Loan for the whole thing- The flip side is you pay off your house. Your house could be worth 400K in 30 years. Probably not but neighborhood could decline, house not kept up, or whatever. Your house is not a risk-free investment. And it fluctuate in many areas more than the stock market. But let's just say your area stays OK or normal. In 30 years you can expect your house to be worth somewhere between 700k to 1.5 million. Let's just say you did GREAT with your house. Guess what? At 1.5 million selling price you still lost 1.5 million because of your decision plus sunk your money into a less liquid option. Let the bank take the risk on your house price. The warm fuzzy feeling will be there when you realize you could rebuy your house two times over in 6-7 years. Note: I know my example doesn't use your exact numbers. I am just showing what your true cost is of making a decision in the most extreme way. I am guessing you have great credit and might be able to find an all interest loan at 3%. So not doing this is costing you 1.5 million over 30 years. Given a lower home price after 30 years or a higher rate of return this easily be much more. IF you earned 12% over the 30 year period you would be costing yourself 16 million - do the math. Now you are talking about doing something in-between. Which means you will basically have the same risk factors with less return." }, { "docid": "355972", "title": "", "text": "\"Will the bank be taxed on the $x received through selling the collateral? Why do you care? They will, of course, although their basis will be different. It is of no concern for you. What is your concern is that the write-off of the loan is taxed as ordinary income (as opposed to capital gains when you sell the stocks) for you. So when the bank seizes the stocks, they will also report to the IRS that they gave you the amount of money that you owed them (which they will \"\"give you\"\" and then put it on the account of the loan). So you get taxed on that amount as income. In addition, you will be taxed on the gains on the stocks, as giving them to the bank is considered a sale. So you may actually find yourself in a situation where you'd be paying taxes twice, once capital gains, and once as ordinary income, on the same money. I would strongly advise against this. If it is a real situation and not a hypothetical question - get a professional tax advice. I'm not a professional, talk to a CPA/EA licensed in your state.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "96926", "title": "", "text": "The mutual fund will price at day's end, while the ETF trades during the day, like a stock. If you decide at 10am, that some event will occur during the day that will send the market up, the ETF is preferable. Aside from that, the expenses are identical, a low .14%. No real difference especially in a Roth." } ]

[ { "docid": "518735", "title": "", "text": "There is little difference between buying shares in your broker's index fund and shares of their corresponding ETF. In many cases the money invested in an ETF gets essentially stuffed right into the index fund (I believe Vanguard does this, for example). In either case you will be paying a little bit of tax. In the ETF case it will be on the dividends that are paid out. In the index fund case it will additionally be on the capital gains that have been realized within the fund, which are very few for an index fund. Not a ton in either case. The more important tax consideration is between purchase and sale, which is the same in either case. I'd say stick it wherever the lowest fees are." }, { "docid": "367014", "title": "", "text": "Go with a Vanguard ETF. I had a lengthy discussion with a successful broker who runs a firm in Chicago. He boiled all of finance down to Vanguard ETF and start saving with a roth IRA. 20 years of psychology research shows that there's a .01 correlation (that's 1/100 of 1%) of stock/mutual fund performance to prediction. That's effectively zero. You can read more about it in the book Thinking Fast and Slow. Investors have ignored this research for years. The truth is you'd be just as successful if you picked your mutual funds out of a hat. But I'll recommend you go with a broker's advice." }, { "docid": "404800", "title": "", "text": "First, check out some of the answers on this question: Oversimplify it for me: the correct order of investing When you have determined that you are ready to invest for retirement, there are two things you need to consider: the investment and the account. These are separate items. The investment is what makes your money grow. The type of account provides tax advantages (and restrictions). Generally, these can be considered separately; for the most part, you can do any type of investment in any account. Briefly, here is an overview of some of the main options: In your situation, the Roth IRA is what I would recommend. This grows tax free, and if you need the funds for some reason, you can get out what you put in without penalty. You can invest up to $5500 in your Roth IRA each year. In addition to the above reasons, which are true for anybody, a Roth IRA would be especially beneficial for you for three reasons: For someone that is closer in age to retirement and in a higher tax bracket now, a Roth IRA is less attractive than it is for you. Inside your Roth IRA, there are lots of choices. 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. There are lots of different types of stock mutual funds with different strategies and expenses associated with them. Managed funds actively buy and sell different stocks inside them, but have high expenses to pay the managers. Index funds buy and hold a list of stocks, and have very low expenses. The conventional wisdom is that, in general, index funds perform better than managed funds when you take the expenses into account. I hope this overview and these recommendations were helpful. If you have any specific questions about any of these types of accounts or investments, feel free to ask another question." }, { "docid": "403556", "title": "", "text": "I would open a taxable account with the same custodian that manages your Roth IRA (e.g., Vanguard, Fidelity, etc.). Then within the taxable account I would invest the extra money in low cost, broad market index funds that are tax efficient. Unlike in your 401(k) and Roth IRA, you will now have tax implications if your funds produce dividends or realize a capital gain. That is why tax-efficient funds are important to minimize this as much as possible. The 3-fund portfolio is a popular choice for taxable accounts because of simplicity and the tax efficiency of broad market index funds that are part of the three fund portfolio. The 3-fund portfolio normally consists of Depending on your tax bracket you may want to consider municipal bonds in your taxable instead of taxable bonds if your tax bracket is 25% or higher. Another option is to forgo bonds altogether in the taxable account and just hold bonds in retirement accounts while keeping tax efficient domestic and international tock funds in your taxable account. Then adjust the bond portion upward in your retirement accounts to account for the additional stocks in your taxable accounts. This will maintain the asset allocation that you've already chosen that is appropriate for your age and goals." }, { "docid": "328754", "title": "", "text": "\"Switching to only 401k or only SPY? Both bad ideas. Read on. You need multiple savings vehicles. 401k, Roth IRA, emergency fund. You can/should add others for long term savings goals and wealth building. Though you could combine the non-tax-advantaged accounts and keep track of your minimum (representing the emergency fund). SPY is ETF version of SPDR index mutual fund tracking the S&P 500 index. Index funds buy weighted amounts of members of their index by an algorithm to ensure that the total holdings of the fund model the index that they track. They use market capitalization and share prices and other factors to automatically rebalance. Individual investors do not directly affect the composition or makeup of the S&P500, at least not visibly. Technically, very large trades might have a visible effect on the index makeup, but I suspect the size of the trade would be in the billions. An Electronically Traded Fund is sold by the share and represents one equal share of the underlying fund, as divided equally amongst all the shareholders. You put dollars into a fund, you buy shares of an ETF. In the case of an index ETF, it allows you to \"\"buy\"\" a fractional share of the underlying index such as the S&P 500. For SPY, 10 SPY shares represent one S&P basket. Targeted retirement plan funds combine asset allocation into one fund. They are a one stop shop for a diversified allocation. Beware the fees though. Always beware the fees. Fidelity offers a huge assortment of plans. You should look into what is available for you after you decide how you will proceed. More later. SPY is a ETF, think of it as a share of stock. You can go to a bank, broker, or what have you and set up an account and buy shares of it. Then you have x shares of SPY which is the ETF version of SPDR which is an index mutual fund. If the company is matching the first 10% of your income on a 1:1 basis, that would be the best I've heard of in the past two decades, even with the 10 year vesting requirement. If this is them matching 1 dollar in 10 that you contribute to 401k, it may be the worst I've ever heard of, especially with 10 year vesting. Typical is 3-5% match, 3-5 year vesting. Bottom line, that match is free money. And the tax advantage should not be ignored, even if there is no match. Research: I applaud your interest. The investments you make now will have the greatest impact on your retirement. Here's a scenario: If you can figure out how to live on 50% of your take home pay (100k * 0.90 * 0.60 * 0.5 / 12) (salary with first 10% in 401k at roughly 60% after taxes, social security, medicare, etc. halved and divided by 12 for a monthly amount), you'll have 2250 a month to live on. Since you're 28 and single, it's far easier for you to do than someone who is 50 and married with kids. That leaves you with 2250 a month to max out 401k and Roth and invest the rest in wealth building. After four or five years the amount your investments are earning will begin to be noticeable. After ten years or so, they will eclipse your contributions. At that point you could theoretically live of the income. This works with any percentage rate, and the higher your savings rate is, the lower your cost of living amount is, and the faster you'll hit an investment income rate that matches your cost of living amount. At least that's the early retirement concept. The key, as far as I can tell, is living frugally, identifying and negating wasteful spending, and getting the savings rate high without forcing yourself into cheap behavior. Reading financial independence blog posts tells me that once they learn to live frugally, they enjoy it. It's a lot of work, and planning, but if you want to be financially independent, you are definitely in a good position to consider it. Other notes:\"" }, { "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": "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": "217242", "title": "", "text": "You could look into an index fund or ETF that invests primarily in Real Estate Investment Trusts (REIT's). An REIT is any corporation, trust or association that acts as an investment agent specializing in real estate and real estate mortgages Many investment firms offer an index fund or ETF like this. For example, Vanguard and Fidelity have funds that invest primarily in real estate markets. You could also invest in a home construction ETF, like iShares' ITB, which invests in companies related to home construction. This ETF includes more companies than just REITs, so for example, Home Depot is included." }, { "docid": "214174", "title": "", "text": "\"A Roth IRA is simply a tax-sheltered account that you deposit funds into, and then invest however you choose (within the limits of the firm you deposit the funds with). For example, you could open a Roth IRA account with Vanguard. You could then invest the $3000 by purchasing shares of VOO, which tracks the S&P 500 index and has a very low expense ratio (0.04 as of last time I checked). Fidelity has a similar option, or Schwab, or whatever brokerage firm you prefer. IRAs are basically just normal investment accounts, except they don't owe taxes until you withdraw them (and Roth don't even owe them then, though you paid taxes on the funds you deposit). They have some limitations regarding options trading and such, but if you're a novice investor just looking to do basic investments, you'll not notice. Then, your IRA would go up or down in value as the market went up or down in value. You do have some restrictions on when you can withdraw the funds; Roth IRA has fewer than a normal IRA, as you can withdraw the capital (the amount you deposited) without penalty, but the profits cannot be withdrawn until you're retirement age (I won't put an actual year, as I suspect that actual year will change by the time you're that old; but think 60s). The reason not to invest in an IRA is if you plan on using the money in the near future - even as an \"\"emergency fund\"\". You should have some money that is not invested aggressively, that is in something very safe and very accessible, for your emergency fund; and if you plan to buy a house or whatever with the funds, don't start an IRA. But if this is truly money you want to save for retirement, that's the best place to start. **Note, this is not investment advice, and you should do your own homework prior to making any investment. You can lose some or all of the value of your account while investing.\"" }, { "docid": "439402", "title": "", "text": "Once upon a time, money rolled over from a 401k or 403b plan into an IRA could not be rolled into another 401k or 403b unless the IRA account was properly titled as a Rollover IRA (instead of Traditional IRA - Roth IRAs were still in the future) and the money kept separate (not commingled) with contributions to Traditional IRAs. Much of that has fallen by the way side as the rules have become more relaxed. Also the desire to roll over money into a 401k plan at one's new job has decreased too -- far too many employer-sponsored retirement plans have large management fees and the investments are rarely the best available: one can generally do better keeping ex-401k money outside a new 401k, though of course new contributions from salary earned at the new employer perforce must be put into the employer's 401k. While consolidating one's IRA accounts at one brokerage or one fund family certainly saves on the paperwork, it is worth keeping in mind that putting all one's eggs in one basket might not be the best idea, especially for those concerned that an employee might, like Matilda, take me money and run Venezuela. Another issue is that while one may have diversified investments at the brokerage or fund family, the entire IRA must have the same set of beneficiaries: one cannot leave the money invested in GM stock (or Fund A) to one person and the money invested in Ford stock (or Fund B) to another if one so desires. Thinking far ahead into the future, if one is interested in making charitable bequests, it is the best strategy tax-wise to make these bequests from tax-deferred monies rather than from post-tax money. Since IRAs pass outside the will, one can keep separate IRA accounts with different companies, with, say, the Vanguard IRA having primary beneficiary United Way and the Fidelity IRA having primary beneficiary the American Cancer Society, etc. to achieve the appropriate charitable bequests." }, { "docid": "345199", "title": "", "text": "\"Since your 401k/IRA are maxed out and you don't need a 529 for kids, the next step is a plain ol' \"\"Taxable account.\"\" The easiest and most hassle-free would be automatic contributions into a Mutual Fund. Building on poolie's answer, I think mutual funds are much more automatic/hassle-free than ETFs, so in your case (and with your savings rate), just invest in the Investor (or Admiral) shares of VEU and VTI. Other hassle-free options include I-Bonds ($5k/year), and 5-year CDs.\"" }, { "docid": "549364", "title": "", "text": "\"As you alluded to in your question, there is not one answer that will be true for all mutual funds. In fact, I would argue the question is not specific to mutual funds but can be applied to almost anyone who must make an investment decision: a mutual fund manager, hedge fund manager, or an individual investor. Even though money going into a company 401(k) retirement savings plan is typically automatically allocated to different funds as we have specified, this is generally not the case for other investment accounts. For example, I also have a Roth IRA in which I have some money from each paycheck direct deposited and it's up to me to decide whether to leave that money in cash or to invest it somewhere else. Every time you invest more money into a mutual fund, the fund manager has the same decision to make. There are two commonly used mutual fund figures that relate to your question: turnover rate, and cash reserves. Turnover rate measures the percent of a fund's portfolio that changes every year. For example, a turnover rate of 100% indicates that a fund replaces every asset it held at the beginning of the year with something else at the end of the year – funds with turnover rates greater than 100% average a holding period for a given asset of less than one year, and funds with turnover rates less than 100% average a holding period for a given asset of more than one year. Cash reserves simply measure the amount of money funds choose to keep as cash instead of investing in other assets. Another important distinction to make is between actively managed funds and passively managed funds. Passively managed funds are often referred to as \"\"index funds\"\" and have as their goal only to match the returns of a given index or some other benchmark. Actively managed funds on the other hand try to beat the market by exploiting so-called market inefficiencies; e.g. buying undervalued assets, selling overvalued assets, \"\"timing\"\" the market, etc. To answer your question for a specific fund, I would encourage you to look at the fund's prospectus. I take as one example of a passively managed fund the Vanguard 500 Index Fund (VFINX), a mutual fund that was created to track the S&P 500. In its prospectus, the fund states that, \"\"to track its target index as closely as possible, the Fund attempts to remain fully invested in stocks\"\". Furthermore, the prospectus states that \"\"the fund's daily cash balance may be invested in one or more Vanguard CMT Funds, which are very low-cost money market funds.\"\" Therefore, we would expect both this fund's turnover rate and cash reserves to be extremely low. When we look at its portfolio composition, we see this is true – it is currently at a 4.8% turnover rate and holds 0.0% in short term reserves. Therefore, we can assume this fund is regularly purchasing shares (similar to a dollar cost averaging strategy) instead of holding on to cash and purchasing shares together at a specific time. For actively managed funds, the picture will tend to look a little different. For example, if we look at the Magellan Fund's portfolio composition, we can see it has a turnover rate of 42%, and holds around .95% in cash/short term reserves. In this case, we can safely guess that trading activity may not be as regular as a passively managed fund, as an active manager attempts to time the market. You may find mutual funds that have much higher cash reserves – perhaps 10% or even more. Granted, it is impossible to know the exact trading strategy of a mutual fund, and for good reason – if we knew for example, that a fund purchases shares every day at 2:30PM in order to realign with the S&P 500, then sellers of S&P components could up the prices at that time to exploit the mutual fund's trade strategy. Large traders are constantly trying to find ways to conceal their actual trading activity in order to avoid these exact problems. Finally, I feel obligated to note that it is important to keep in mind that trade frequency is linked to transactions costs – in general, the more frequently an investment manager (whether it be you or a mutual fund manager) executes trades, the more that manager will lose in transactions costs.\"" }, { "docid": "377429", "title": "", "text": "In the case of VFIAX versus VOO, if you're a buy-and-hold investor, you're probably better off with the mutual fund because you can buy fractional shares. However, in general the expense ratio for ETFs will be lower than equivalent mutual funds (even passive index funds). They are the same in this case because the mutual fund is Admiral Class, which has a $10,000 minimum investment that not all people may be able to meet. Additionally, ETFs are useful when you don't have an account with the mutual fund company (i.e. Vanguard), and buying the mutual fund would incur heavy transaction fees." }, { "docid": "220486", "title": "", "text": "\"You cannot actually buy an index in the true sense of the word. An index is created and maintained by a company like Standard and Poor's who licenses the use of the index to firms like Vanguard. The S&P 500 is an example of an index. The S&P 500 \"\"index includes 500 leading companies\"\", many finical companies sell products which track to this index. The two most popular products which track to indexes are Mutual Funds (as called Index Funds and Index Mutual Funds) and Exchange Traded Funds (as called ETFs). Each Index Mutual Fund or ETF has an index which it tracks against, meaning they hold securities which make up a sample of the index (some indexes like bond indexes are very hard to hold everything that makes them up). Looking at the Vanguard S&P 500 Index Mutual Fund (ticker VFINX) we see that it tracks against the S&P 500 index. Looking at its holdings we see the 500-ish stocks that it holds along with a small amount of bonds and cash to handle cash flow for people buying and sell shares. If we look at the Vanguard S&P 500 ETF (ticker VOO) we see that it also tracks against the S&P 500 index. Looking at its holdings we see they are very similar to the similar Index Mutual Fund. Other companies like T. Rowe Price have similar offering. Look at the T. Rowe Price Equity Index 500 Fund (ticker PREIX) its holdings in stocks are the same as the similar Vanguard fund and like the Vanguard fund it also holds a small amount of bonds and cash to handle cash flow. The only real difference between different products which track against the same index is in the expense ratio (fees for managing the fund) and in the small differences in the execution of the funds. For the most part execution of the funds do not really matter to most people (it has a very small effect), what matters is the expense (the fees paid to own the fund). If we just compare the expense ratio of the Vanguard and T. Rowe Price funds we see (as of 27 Feb 2016) Vanguard has an expense ratio of 0.17% for it Index Mutual Fund and 0.05% for its ETF, while T. Rowe Price has an expense ratio of 0.27%. These are just the fees for the funds themselves, there are also account maintenance fees (which normally go down as the amount of money you have invested at a firm go up) and in the case of ETFs execution cost (cost to trade the shares along with the difference between the bid and ask on the shares). If you are just starting out I would say going with the Index Mutual Fund would easier and most likely would cost less over-all if you are buying a small amount of shares every month. When choosing a company look at the expense ratio on the funds and the account maintenance fees (along with the account minimals). Vanguard is well known for having low fees and they in fact were the first to offer Index Mutual Funds. For more info on the S&P 500 index see also this Investopedia entry on the S&P 500 index. Do not worry if this is all a bit confusing it is to most people (myself included) at first.\"" }, { "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": "114054", "title": "", "text": "\"I'm not following what's the meaning of \"\"open a mutual fund\"\". You don't open a mutual fund, you invest in it. There's a minimum required investment ($2000? Could be, some funds have lower limits, you don't have to go with the Fidelity one necessarily), but in general it has nothing to do with your Roth IRA account. You can invest in mutual funds with any trading account, not just Roth IRA (or any other specific kind). If you invest in ETF's - you can invest in funds just as well (subject to the minimums set). As to the plan itself - buying and selling ETF's will cost you commission, ~2-3% of your investment. Over several months, you may get positive returns, and may get negative returns, but keep in mind that you start with the 2-3% loss on day 1. Within a short period of time, especially in the current economic climate (which is very unstable - just out of recession, election year, etc etc), I would think that keeping the cash in a savings account would be a better choice. While with ETF you don't have any guarantees other than -3%, then with savings accounts you can at least have a guaranteed return of ~1% APY (i.e.: won't earn much over the course of your internship, but you'll keep your money safe for your long term investment). For the long term - the fluctuations of month to month don't matter much, so investing now for the next 50 years - you shouldn't care about the stock market going 10% in April. So, keep your 1000 in savings account, and if you want to invest 5000 in your Roth IRA - invest it then. Assuming of course that you're completely positive about not needing this money in the next several decades.\"" }, { "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": "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": "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": "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": "475748", "title": "", "text": "Adapted from an answer to a somewhat different question. Generally, 401k plans have larger annual expenses and provide for poorer investment choices than are available to you if you roll over your 401k investments into an IRA. So, unless you have specific reasons for wanting to continue to leave your money in the 401k plan (e.g. you have access to investments that are not available to nonparticipants and you think those investments are where you want your money to be), roll over your 401k assets into an IRA. But I don't think that is the case here. If you had a Traditional 401k, the assets will roll over into a Traditional IRA; if it was a Roth 401k, into a Roth IRA. If you had started a little earlier, you could have considered considered converting part or all of your Traditional IRA into a Roth IRA (assuming that your 2012 taxable income will be smaller this year because you have quit your job). Of course, this may still hold true in 2013 as well. As to which custodian to choose for your Rollover IRA, I recommend investing in a low-cost index mutual fund such as VFINX which tracks the S&P 500 Index. Then, do not look at how that fund is doing for the next thirty years. This will save you from the common error made by many investors when they pull out at the first downturn and thus end up buying high and selling low. Also, do not chase after exchange-traded mutual funds or ETFs (as many will likely recommend) until you have acquired more savvy or interest in investing than you are currently exhibiting. Not knowing which company stock you have, it is hard to make a recommendation about selling or holding on. But since you are glad to have quit your job, you might want to consider making a clean break and selling the shares that you own in your ex-employer's company. Keep the $35K (less the $12K that you will use to pay off the student loan) as your emergency fund. Pay off your student loan right away since you have the cash to do it." }, { "docid": "367014", "title": "", "text": "Go with a Vanguard ETF. I had a lengthy discussion with a successful broker who runs a firm in Chicago. He boiled all of finance down to Vanguard ETF and start saving with a roth IRA. 20 years of psychology research shows that there's a .01 correlation (that's 1/100 of 1%) of stock/mutual fund performance to prediction. That's effectively zero. You can read more about it in the book Thinking Fast and Slow. Investors have ignored this research for years. The truth is you'd be just as successful if you picked your mutual funds out of a hat. But I'll recommend you go with a broker's advice." }, { "docid": "169886", "title": "", "text": "No, IRA contributions can only be made in the form of cash (rollovers and conversions are different). You'd have to sell the investments in your taxable account, incurring capital gains or losses, then transfer the proceeds to your IRA in cash. Note that the amount you can transfer is subject to the limits on how much one can contribute to the IRA each year. You could look into Vanguard Target Retirement funds, which have a lower $1,000 minimum investment, or Vanguard ETFs." }, { "docid": "549364", "title": "", "text": "\"As you alluded to in your question, there is not one answer that will be true for all mutual funds. In fact, I would argue the question is not specific to mutual funds but can be applied to almost anyone who must make an investment decision: a mutual fund manager, hedge fund manager, or an individual investor. Even though money going into a company 401(k) retirement savings plan is typically automatically allocated to different funds as we have specified, this is generally not the case for other investment accounts. For example, I also have a Roth IRA in which I have some money from each paycheck direct deposited and it's up to me to decide whether to leave that money in cash or to invest it somewhere else. Every time you invest more money into a mutual fund, the fund manager has the same decision to make. There are two commonly used mutual fund figures that relate to your question: turnover rate, and cash reserves. Turnover rate measures the percent of a fund's portfolio that changes every year. For example, a turnover rate of 100% indicates that a fund replaces every asset it held at the beginning of the year with something else at the end of the year – funds with turnover rates greater than 100% average a holding period for a given asset of less than one year, and funds with turnover rates less than 100% average a holding period for a given asset of more than one year. Cash reserves simply measure the amount of money funds choose to keep as cash instead of investing in other assets. Another important distinction to make is between actively managed funds and passively managed funds. Passively managed funds are often referred to as \"\"index funds\"\" and have as their goal only to match the returns of a given index or some other benchmark. Actively managed funds on the other hand try to beat the market by exploiting so-called market inefficiencies; e.g. buying undervalued assets, selling overvalued assets, \"\"timing\"\" the market, etc. To answer your question for a specific fund, I would encourage you to look at the fund's prospectus. I take as one example of a passively managed fund the Vanguard 500 Index Fund (VFINX), a mutual fund that was created to track the S&P 500. In its prospectus, the fund states that, \"\"to track its target index as closely as possible, the Fund attempts to remain fully invested in stocks\"\". Furthermore, the prospectus states that \"\"the fund's daily cash balance may be invested in one or more Vanguard CMT Funds, which are very low-cost money market funds.\"\" Therefore, we would expect both this fund's turnover rate and cash reserves to be extremely low. When we look at its portfolio composition, we see this is true – it is currently at a 4.8% turnover rate and holds 0.0% in short term reserves. Therefore, we can assume this fund is regularly purchasing shares (similar to a dollar cost averaging strategy) instead of holding on to cash and purchasing shares together at a specific time. For actively managed funds, the picture will tend to look a little different. For example, if we look at the Magellan Fund's portfolio composition, we can see it has a turnover rate of 42%, and holds around .95% in cash/short term reserves. In this case, we can safely guess that trading activity may not be as regular as a passively managed fund, as an active manager attempts to time the market. You may find mutual funds that have much higher cash reserves – perhaps 10% or even more. Granted, it is impossible to know the exact trading strategy of a mutual fund, and for good reason – if we knew for example, that a fund purchases shares every day at 2:30PM in order to realign with the S&P 500, then sellers of S&P components could up the prices at that time to exploit the mutual fund's trade strategy. Large traders are constantly trying to find ways to conceal their actual trading activity in order to avoid these exact problems. Finally, I feel obligated to note that it is important to keep in mind that trade frequency is linked to transactions costs – in general, the more frequently an investment manager (whether it be you or a mutual fund manager) executes trades, the more that manager will lose in transactions costs.\"" }, { "docid": "369251", "title": "", "text": "When investing small amounts, you should consider the substantial toll that commissions will take on your investment. In your case, $800 placed in just one ETF will incur commissions of about $8 each way, or a total of 2% of your investment. I suggest you wait until you have at least $5000 to invest in stocks or ETFs. Since this is in a IRA, your options are limited, but perhaps you may qualify for a Vanguard mutual fund, which will not charge commissions and will have annual expenses only a trivial amount higher than the corresponding ETF. it should probably go in a mixed allocation fund, and since you are young, it should be a relatively aggressive one. Mutual funds will also allow you to contribute small amounts over time without incurring any extra fees." }, { "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": "24742", "title": "", "text": "Right now, the unrealized appreciation of Vanguard Tax-Managed Small-Cap Fund Admiral Shares is 28.4% of NAV. As long as the fund delivers decent returns over the long term, is there anything stopping this amount from ballooning to, say, 90% fifty years hence? I'd have a heck of a time imagining how this grows to that high a number realistically. The inflows and outflows of the fund are a bigger question along with what kinds of changes are there to capital gains that may make the fund try to hold onto the stocks longer and minimize the tax burden. If this happens, won't new investors be scared away by the prospect of owing taxes on these gains? For example, a financial crisis or a superior new investment technology could lead investors to dump their shares of tax-managed index funds, triggering enormous capital-gains distributions. And if new investors are scared away, won't the fund be forced to sell its assets to cover redemptions (even if there is no disruptive event), leading to larger capital-gains distributions than in the past? Possibly but you have more than a few assumptions in this to my mind that I wonder how well are you estimating the probability of this happening. Finally, do ETFs avoid this problem (assuming it is a problem)? Yes, ETFs have creation and redemption units that allow for in-kind transactions and thus there isn't a selling of the stock. However, if one wants to pull out various unlikely scenarios then there is the potential of the market being shut down for an extended period of time that would prevent one from selling shares of the ETF that may or may not be as applicable as open-end fund shares. I would however suggest researching if there are hybrid funds that mix open-end fund shares with ETF shares which could be an alternative here." }, { "docid": "551145", "title": "", "text": "None of your options seem mutually exclusive. Ordinarily nothing stops you from participating in your 401(k), opening an IRA, qualifying for your company's pension, and paying off your debts except your ability to pay for all this stuff. Moreover, you can open an IRA anywhere (scottrade, vanguard, etrade, etc.) and freely invest in vanguard mutual funds as well as those of other companies...you aren't normally locked in to the funds of your IRA provider. Consider a traditional IRA. To me your marginal tax rate of 25% doesn't seem that great. If I were in your shoes I would be more likely to contribute to a traditional IRA instead of a Roth. This will save you taxes today and you can put the extra 25% of $5,500 toward your loans. Yes, you will be taxed on that money when you retire, but I think it's likely your rate will be lower than 25%. Moreover, when you are retired you will already own a house and have paid off all your debt, hopefully. You kind of need money now. Between your current tax rate and your need for money now, I'd say a traditional makes good sense. Buy whatever funds you want. If you want a single, cheap, whole-market fund just buy VTSAX. You will need a minimum of $10K to get in, so until then you can buy the ETF version, VTI. Personally I would contribute enough to your 401(k) to get the match and anything else to an IRA (usually they have more and better investment options). If you max that out, go back to the 401(k). Your investment mix isn't that important. Recent research into target date funds puts them in a poor light. Since there isn't a good benchmark for a target date fund, the managers tend to buy whatever they feel like and it may not be what you would prefer if you were choosing. However, the fund you mention has a pretty low expense ratio and the difference between that and your own allocation to an equity index fund or a blend of equity and bond funds is small in expectation. Plus, you can change your allocation whenever you want. You are not locked in. The investment options you mention are reasonable enough that the difference between portfolios is not critical. More important is optimizing your taxes and paying off your debt in the right order. Your interest rates matter more than term does. Paying off debt with more debt will help you if the new debt has a lower interest rate and it won't if it has a higher interest rate. Normally speaking, longer term debt has a higher interest rate. For that reason shorter term debt, if you can afford it, is generally better. Be cold and calculating with your debt. Always pay off highest interest rate debt first and never pay off cheap debt with expensive debt. If the 25 year debt option is lower than all your other interest rates and will allow you to pay off higher interest rate debt faster, it's a good idea. Otherwise it most likely is not. Do not make debt decisions for psychological reasons (e.g., simplicity). Instead, always chose the option that maximizes your ultimate wealth." }, { "docid": "555237", "title": "", "text": "\"The portfolio described in that post has a blend of small slices of Vanguard sector funds, such as Vanguard Pacific Stock Index (VPACX). And the theory is that rebalancing across them will give you a good risk-return tradeoff. (Caveat: I haven't read the book, only the post you link to.) Similar ETFs are available from Vanguard, iShares, and State Street. If you want to replicate the GFP exactly, pick from them. (If you have questions about how to match specific funds in Australia, just ask another question.) So I think you could match it fairly exactly if you wanted to. However, I think trying to exactly replicate the Gone Fishin Portfolio in Australia would not be a good move for most people, for a few reasons: Brokerage and management fees are generally higher in Australia (smaller market), so dividing your investment across ten different securities, and rebalancing, is going to be somewhat more expensive. If you have a \"\"middle-class-sized\"\" portfolio of somewhere in the tens of thousands to low millions of dollars, you're cutting it into fairly small slices to manually allocate 5% to various sectors. To keep brokerage costs low you probably want to buy each ETF only once every one-two years or so. You also need to keep track of the tax consequences of each of them. If you are earning and spending Australian dollars, and looking at the portfolio in Australian dollars, a lot of those assets are going to move together as the Australian dollar moves, regardless of changes in the underlying assets. So there is effectively less diversification than you would have in the US. The post doesn't mention the GFP's approach to tax. I expect they do consider it, but it's not going to be directly applicable to Australia. If you are more interested in implementing the general approach of GFP rather than the specific details, what I would recommend is: The Vanguard and superannuation diversified funds have a very similar internal split to the GFP with a mix of local, first-world and emerging market shares, bonds, and property trusts. This is pretty much fire-and-forget: contribute every month and they will take care of rebalancing, spreading across asset classes, and tax calculations. By my calculations the cost is very similar, the diversification is very similar, and it's much easier. The only thing they don't generally cover is a precious metals allocation, and if you want that, just put 5% of your money into the ASX:GOLD ETF, or something similar.\"" }, { "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": "20323", "title": "", "text": "If you invest in a 401(k), the shares in that plan are yours for as long as you live, or until you pull them out. So, if the employer is offering any sort of matching and those matched funds remain yours after you leave, then definitely contribute; that's an immediate return on your money. If the employer is NOT matching funds, then usually it is better to contribute to an IRA instead; you get the same income tax benefits from the deduction, without the headaches of going through your company (or the company from 3 jobs ago or whoever bought them) to get to your money. If I were in your position, the most I personally would do after I quit the company (which I'm assuming you'd be doing if you were going back to your country of origin) would be to have the 401k shares rolled over into a traditional IRA; that way I'd have more control over it from outside the country. Just keep the bank holding your IRA apprised of your movements around the world and how they can get ahold of you (it may be wise to grant a limited power of attorney to someone who will be staying in the U.S. if you don't want the bank mailing your statements all around the world), and the money can stay in an American account while you do whatever you have to outside it. As long as you don't take the money out in cash before you're 59 1/2 years old, you don't need to pay taxes or penalties on it. If you were to need it to cover unexpected expenses (perhaps relating to the aforementioned family emergency), then that decision can be made at that time. If you think that's even remotely likely, you may consider a Roth IRA. With a Roth, you pay the income taxes on your contributions, but the money is then yours; you can withdraw anything up to the total amount of your contributions without any additional taxes or penalties, and once you hit 59 and a half the interest also becomes available, also tax- and penalty- free. So if you had to leave the country and take a lot of cash with you, you could get out everything you actually put into a Roth with only minor if any transaction fees, and the interest will still be there compounding." }, { "docid": "439402", "title": "", "text": "Once upon a time, money rolled over from a 401k or 403b plan into an IRA could not be rolled into another 401k or 403b unless the IRA account was properly titled as a Rollover IRA (instead of Traditional IRA - Roth IRAs were still in the future) and the money kept separate (not commingled) with contributions to Traditional IRAs. Much of that has fallen by the way side as the rules have become more relaxed. Also the desire to roll over money into a 401k plan at one's new job has decreased too -- far too many employer-sponsored retirement plans have large management fees and the investments are rarely the best available: one can generally do better keeping ex-401k money outside a new 401k, though of course new contributions from salary earned at the new employer perforce must be put into the employer's 401k. While consolidating one's IRA accounts at one brokerage or one fund family certainly saves on the paperwork, it is worth keeping in mind that putting all one's eggs in one basket might not be the best idea, especially for those concerned that an employee might, like Matilda, take me money and run Venezuela. Another issue is that while one may have diversified investments at the brokerage or fund family, the entire IRA must have the same set of beneficiaries: one cannot leave the money invested in GM stock (or Fund A) to one person and the money invested in Ford stock (or Fund B) to another if one so desires. Thinking far ahead into the future, if one is interested in making charitable bequests, it is the best strategy tax-wise to make these bequests from tax-deferred monies rather than from post-tax money. Since IRAs pass outside the will, one can keep separate IRA accounts with different companies, with, say, the Vanguard IRA having primary beneficiary United Way and the Fidelity IRA having primary beneficiary the American Cancer Society, etc. to achieve the appropriate charitable bequests." }, { "docid": "83409", "title": "", "text": "\"Admiral Share class comes with a low expense but higher minimum investment amount. Think of it as a wholesale deal. From Vanguard's website - Admiral™ Shares are a separate share class of Vanguard mutual funds that were created to pass along the savings that result from larger accounts to the investors who own them. Regarding the minimum investment amount, if you look at other prime money market fund and the corresponding \"\"wholesale\"\" version (different institutions use different names: Admiral Shares, Capital Class, Institutional Class etc.), you will see some with even bigger differences. For example, FIPXX requires $10mil.\"" }, { "docid": "410542", "title": "", "text": "Your financial advisor got a pretty good commission for selling you the annuity is what happened. As for transferring it over to Vanguard (or any other company) and investing it in something else, go to Vanguard's site, tell them that you want to open a new Roth IRA account by doing a trustee-to-trustee transfer from your other Roth IRA account, and tell them to go get the funds for you from your current Roth IRA trustee. You will need to sign some papers authorizing Vanguard to go fetch, make sure all the account numbers and the name of the current trustee (usually a company with a name that includes Trust or Fiduciary as shown on your latest statement) are correct, and sit back and wait while your life improves." }, { "docid": "345199", "title": "", "text": "\"Since your 401k/IRA are maxed out and you don't need a 529 for kids, the next step is a plain ol' \"\"Taxable account.\"\" The easiest and most hassle-free would be automatic contributions into a Mutual Fund. Building on poolie's answer, I think mutual funds are much more automatic/hassle-free than ETFs, so in your case (and with your savings rate), just invest in the Investor (or Admiral) shares of VEU and VTI. Other hassle-free options include I-Bonds ($5k/year), and 5-year CDs.\"" }, { "docid": "373501", "title": "", "text": "The minimum at Schwab to open an IRA is $1000. Why don't you check the two you listed to see what their minimum opening balance is? If you plan to go with ETFs, you want to ask them what their commission is for a minimum trade. In Is investing in an ETF generally your best option after establishing a Roth IRA? sheegaon points out that for the smaller investor, index mutual funds are cheaper than the ETFs, part due to commission, part the bid/ask spread." }, { "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": "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": "214499", "title": "", "text": "I am a huge fan of jim Cramer and while you may not get CNBC in Australia you can prolly catch jim cramers podcasts If you have an iPod or iPhone which really will help your financial literacy a bit. Here's my advice . Set up a IRA or tax advantaged accounts if they exist in Australia (sorry I only know usa markets really well). Then you can pick investments to go in there or in a different investment account. I am a huge fan of index funds in particular Etf index funds because they are still very liquid. I prefer the free or no commission funds by Charles scwabb but vanguard is also very good or maybe even better. A few great funds are the vanguard total stock market fund (it invests in every company in the world) and any fund that mirrors the s&p 500 or the Russell 2000 midcap. Another good idea just to make room to save money is make a budget with your wife. I like the other post about planning in reverse . Setting up a budget to see your expenses and then make automatic pay dedications that go into savings or different accounts for savings." } ]

[ { "docid": "435746", "title": "", "text": "The top ten holdings for these funds don't overlap by even one stock. It seems to me they are targeting an index for comparison, but making no attempt to replicate a list of holdings as would, say, a true S&P index." } ]

[ { "docid": "116647", "title": "", "text": "\"The game is not zero sum. When a friend and I chop down a tree, and build a house from it, the house has value, far greater than the value of a standing tree. Our labor has turned into something of value. In theory, a company starts from an idea, and offers either a good or service to create value. There are scams that make it seem like a Vegas casino. There are times a stock will trade for well above what it should. When I buy the S&P index at a fair price for 1000 (through an etf or fund) and years later it's 1400, the gain isn't out of someone else's pocket, else the amount of wealth in the world would be fixed and that's not the case. Over time, investors lag the market return for multiple reasons, trading costs, bad timing, etc. Statements such as \"\"90% lose money\"\" are hyperbole meant to separate you from your money. A self fulfilling prophesy. The question of lagging the market is another story - I have no data to support my observation, but I'd imagine that well over 90% lag the broad market. A detailed explanation is too long for this forum, but simply put, there are trading costs. If I invest in an S&P ETF that costs .1% per year, I'll see a return of say 9.9% over decades if the market return is 10%. Over 40 years, this is 4364% compounded, vs the index 4526% compounded, a difference of less than 4% in final wealth. There are load funds that charge more than this just to buy in (5% anyone?). Lagging by a small fraction is a far cry from 'losing money.' There is an annual report by a company named Dalbar that tracks investor performance. For the 20 year period ending 12/31/10 the S&P returned 9.14% and Dalbar calculates the average investor had an average return of 3.83%. Pretty bad, but not zero. Since you don't cite a particular article or source, there may be more to the story. Day traders are likely to lose. As are a series of other types of traders in other markets, Forex for one. While your question may be interesting, its premise of \"\"many experts say....\"\" without naming even one leaves room for doubt. Note - I've updated the link for the 2015 report. And 4 years later, I see that when searching on that 90% statistic, the articles are about day traders. That actually makes sense to me.\"" }, { "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": "144261", "title": "", "text": "\"Index funds are well-known to give the best long-term investment. Not exactly. Indexes give the best long term performance when compared to actively managing investments directly in the underlying stocks. That is, if you compare an S&P500 index to trying to pick stocks that are part of it, you're more likely to succeed with blindly following the index than trying to actively beat it. That said, no-one promises that investing in S&P500 is better than investing in DJIA, for example. These are two different indexes tracking different stocks and areas. So when advisers say \"\"diversify\"\" they don't mean it that you should diversify between different stocks that build up the S&P500 index. They mean that you should diversify your investments in different areas. Some in S&P500, some in DJIA, some in international indexes, some in bond indexes, etc. Still, investing in various indexes will likely yield better results than actively managing the investments trying to beat those indexes, but you should not invest in only one, and that is the meaning of diversification. In the comments you asked \"\"why diversify at all?\"\", and that is entirely a different question from your original \"\"what diversification is?\"\". You diversify to reduce the risk of loss from one side, and widen the net for gains from another. The thing is that any single investment can eventually fail, regardless of how it performed before. You can see that the S&P500 index lost 50% of its value twice within ten years, whereas before it was doubling itself every several years. Many people who were only invested in that index (or what's underlying to it) lost a lot of money. But consider you've diversified, and in the last 20 years you've invested in a blend of indexes that include the S&P500, but also other investments like S&P BSE SENSEX mentioned by Victor below. You would reduce your risk of loss on the American market by increasing your gains on the Indian market. Add to the mix soaring Chinese Real Estate market during the time of the collapse of the US real-estate, gains on the dollar losing its value by investing in other currencies (Canadian dollar, for example), etc. There are many risks, and by diversifying you mitigate them, and also have a chance to create other potential gains. Now, another question is why invest in indexes. That has been answered before on this site. It is my opinion that some methods of investing are just gambling by trying to catch the wave and they will almost always fail, and rarely will individual stock picking beat the market. Of course, after the fact its easy to be smart and pick the winning stocks. But the problem is to be able to predict those charts ahead of time.\"" }, { "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": "520963", "title": "", "text": "\"Your bank's fund is not an index fund. From your link: To provide a balanced portfolio of primarily Canadian securities that produce income and capital appreciation by investing primarily in Canadian money market instruments, debt securities and common and preferred shares. This is a very broad actively managed fund. Compare this to the investment objective listed for Vanguard's VOO: Invests in stocks in the S&P 500 Index, representing 500 of the largest U.S. companies. There are loads of market indices with varying formulas that are supposed to track the performance of a market or market segment that they intend to track. The Russel 2000, The Wilshire 1000, The S&P 500, the Dow Industrial Average, there is even the SSGA Gender Diversity Index. Some body comes up with a market index. An \"\"Index Fund\"\" is simply a Mutual Fund or Exchange Traded Fund (ETF) that uses a market index formula to make it's investment decisions enabling an investor to track the performance of the index without having to buy and sell the constituent securities on their own. These \"\"index funds\"\" are able to charge lower fees because they spend $0 on research, and only make investment decisions in order to track the holdings of the index. I think 1.2% is too high, but I'm coming from the US investing world it might not be that high compared to Canadian offerings. Additionally, comparing this fund's expense ratio to the Vanguard 500 or Total Market index fund is nonsensical. Similarly, comparing the investment returns is nonsensical because one tracks the S&P 500 and one does not, nor does it seek to (as an example the #5 largest holding of the CIBC fund is a Government of Canada 2045 3.5% bond). Everyone should diversify their holdings and adjust their investment allocations as they age. As you age you should be reallocating away from highly volatile common stock and in to assets classes that are historically more stable/less volatile like national government debt and high grade corporate/local government debt. This fund is already diversified in to some debt instruments, depending on your age and other asset allocations this might not be the best place to put your money regardless of the fees. Personally, I handle my own asset allocations and I'm split between Large, Mid and Small cap low-fee index funds, and the lowest cost high grade debt funds available to me.\"" }, { "docid": "570247", "title": "", "text": "Barclays offers an iPath ETN (not quite an ETF), DJP, which tracks the total return of the Dow Jones-AIG Commodity Index." }, { "docid": "462984", "title": "", "text": "\"Vanguard has a Vanguard FTSE Social Index Fund. Their web page says \"\"Some individuals choose investments based on social and personal beliefs. For this type of investor, we have offered Vanguard FTSE Social Index Fund since 2000. This low-cost fund seeks to track a benchmark of large- and mid-capitalization stocks that have been screened for certain social, human rights, and environmental criteria. In addition to stock market volatility, one of the fund’s other key risks is that this socially conscious approach may produce returns that diverge from those of the broad market.\"\" It looks like it would meet the qualifications you require, plus Vanguard funds usually have very low fees.\"" }, { "docid": "328754", "title": "", "text": "\"Switching to only 401k or only SPY? Both bad ideas. Read on. You need multiple savings vehicles. 401k, Roth IRA, emergency fund. You can/should add others for long term savings goals and wealth building. Though you could combine the non-tax-advantaged accounts and keep track of your minimum (representing the emergency fund). SPY is ETF version of SPDR index mutual fund tracking the S&P 500 index. Index funds buy weighted amounts of members of their index by an algorithm to ensure that the total holdings of the fund model the index that they track. They use market capitalization and share prices and other factors to automatically rebalance. Individual investors do not directly affect the composition or makeup of the S&P500, at least not visibly. Technically, very large trades might have a visible effect on the index makeup, but I suspect the size of the trade would be in the billions. An Electronically Traded Fund is sold by the share and represents one equal share of the underlying fund, as divided equally amongst all the shareholders. You put dollars into a fund, you buy shares of an ETF. In the case of an index ETF, it allows you to \"\"buy\"\" a fractional share of the underlying index such as the S&P 500. For SPY, 10 SPY shares represent one S&P basket. Targeted retirement plan funds combine asset allocation into one fund. They are a one stop shop for a diversified allocation. Beware the fees though. Always beware the fees. Fidelity offers a huge assortment of plans. You should look into what is available for you after you decide how you will proceed. More later. SPY is a ETF, think of it as a share of stock. You can go to a bank, broker, or what have you and set up an account and buy shares of it. Then you have x shares of SPY which is the ETF version of SPDR which is an index mutual fund. If the company is matching the first 10% of your income on a 1:1 basis, that would be the best I've heard of in the past two decades, even with the 10 year vesting requirement. If this is them matching 1 dollar in 10 that you contribute to 401k, it may be the worst I've ever heard of, especially with 10 year vesting. Typical is 3-5% match, 3-5 year vesting. Bottom line, that match is free money. And the tax advantage should not be ignored, even if there is no match. Research: I applaud your interest. The investments you make now will have the greatest impact on your retirement. Here's a scenario: If you can figure out how to live on 50% of your take home pay (100k * 0.90 * 0.60 * 0.5 / 12) (salary with first 10% in 401k at roughly 60% after taxes, social security, medicare, etc. halved and divided by 12 for a monthly amount), you'll have 2250 a month to live on. Since you're 28 and single, it's far easier for you to do than someone who is 50 and married with kids. That leaves you with 2250 a month to max out 401k and Roth and invest the rest in wealth building. After four or five years the amount your investments are earning will begin to be noticeable. After ten years or so, they will eclipse your contributions. At that point you could theoretically live of the income. This works with any percentage rate, and the higher your savings rate is, the lower your cost of living amount is, and the faster you'll hit an investment income rate that matches your cost of living amount. At least that's the early retirement concept. The key, as far as I can tell, is living frugally, identifying and negating wasteful spending, and getting the savings rate high without forcing yourself into cheap behavior. Reading financial independence blog posts tells me that once they learn to live frugally, they enjoy it. It's a lot of work, and planning, but if you want to be financially independent, you are definitely in a good position to consider it. Other notes:\"" }, { "docid": "91179", "title": "", "text": "If you are worried about an increase in volatility, then go long volatility. Volatility itself can be traded. Here in the US there is an index VIX that is described as tracking volatility. What VIX actually tracks is the premium of S&P 500 options, which become more expensive when traders want to hedge against volatility. In the US you can trade VIX options or invest in VIX tracking ETFs like VXX. Apparently there are similar ETFs listed in Canada, such as HUV. Volatility itself is quite volatile so it is possible that a small volatility long position would cover the losses of a larger long position in stocks. If you do choose to invest in a volatility ETF, be aware that they experience quite a lot of decay. You will not want to hold it for very long." }, { "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": "555237", "title": "", "text": "\"The portfolio described in that post has a blend of small slices of Vanguard sector funds, such as Vanguard Pacific Stock Index (VPACX). And the theory is that rebalancing across them will give you a good risk-return tradeoff. (Caveat: I haven't read the book, only the post you link to.) Similar ETFs are available from Vanguard, iShares, and State Street. If you want to replicate the GFP exactly, pick from them. (If you have questions about how to match specific funds in Australia, just ask another question.) So I think you could match it fairly exactly if you wanted to. However, I think trying to exactly replicate the Gone Fishin Portfolio in Australia would not be a good move for most people, for a few reasons: Brokerage and management fees are generally higher in Australia (smaller market), so dividing your investment across ten different securities, and rebalancing, is going to be somewhat more expensive. If you have a \"\"middle-class-sized\"\" portfolio of somewhere in the tens of thousands to low millions of dollars, you're cutting it into fairly small slices to manually allocate 5% to various sectors. To keep brokerage costs low you probably want to buy each ETF only once every one-two years or so. You also need to keep track of the tax consequences of each of them. If you are earning and spending Australian dollars, and looking at the portfolio in Australian dollars, a lot of those assets are going to move together as the Australian dollar moves, regardless of changes in the underlying assets. So there is effectively less diversification than you would have in the US. The post doesn't mention the GFP's approach to tax. I expect they do consider it, but it's not going to be directly applicable to Australia. If you are more interested in implementing the general approach of GFP rather than the specific details, what I would recommend is: The Vanguard and superannuation diversified funds have a very similar internal split to the GFP with a mix of local, first-world and emerging market shares, bonds, and property trusts. This is pretty much fire-and-forget: contribute every month and they will take care of rebalancing, spreading across asset classes, and tax calculations. By my calculations the cost is very similar, the diversification is very similar, and it's much easier. The only thing they don't generally cover is a precious metals allocation, and if you want that, just put 5% of your money into the ASX:GOLD ETF, or something similar.\"" }, { "docid": "315930", "title": "", "text": "Here is some good advice, read your UCO prospectus. It seems to hold 20% of it's value ($600MM out of $3B) via 13800 of the Apr 21st 2015 contracts. (expiring in 30 days) Those will be rolled very quickly into the May contracts at a significant loss of NAV. (based on current oil futures chains) Meaning if crude oil stays exactly the same price, you'd still lose 1% (5% spread loss * .20% the percentage of NAV based off futures contracts) on the roll each month. Their other $2.4Billion is held in swaptions or cash, unsure how to rate that exposure. All I know is those 13,800 contracts are in contango danger during roll week for the next few months (IMO). I wonder if there is a website that tracks inflows and outflows to see if they match up with before and after the roll periods. http://www.proshares.com/funds/uco_daily_holdings.html How Oil ETFs Work Many oil ETFs invest in oil futures contracts. An oil futures contract is a commitment to buy a given amount of crude oil at a given price on a particular date in the future. Since the purpose of oil ETFs is only to serve as an investment vehicle to track the price of oil, the creators of the fund have no interest in stockpiling actual oil. Therefore, oil ETFs such as USO periodically “roll over” their futures contracts by selling the contracts that are approaching expiration and buying contracts that expire farther into the future. The Contango Problem While this process of continually rolling over futures contracts may seem like a great way to track the price of crude oil, there’s a practical problem with the method: contango. The rollover method would work perfectly if oil funds could sell their expiring contracts for the exact same price that they pay for the futures contracts they buy each month. However, in reality, it’s often true that oil futures contracts get more expensive the farther their expiration date is in the future. That means that every time the oil ETFs roll over their contracts, they lose the difference in value between the contracts they sell and the contracts they buy. That’s why funds like USO, which invests only in WTI light, sweet crude oil futures contracts, don’t directly track the performance of the WTI crude oil spot price. http://www.etftrends.com/2015/01/positioning-for-an-oil-etf-rebound-watch-for-contango/ Due to these reasons, I'd deem UCO for swing trading, not for 'investing' (buy-and-hold). Maybe later I'll remember why one shouldn't buy and hold leveraged vehicles (leverage slippage/decay). Do you have an exit price in mind ? or are you buy and hold ?" }, { "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": "198572", "title": "", "text": "\"I have a similar situation -- five different accounts between me and my wife. Just as you and @Alex B describe, I maintain my asset allocation across the combination of all accounts. I also maintain a spreadsheet to track the targets, deviations from the targets, amounts required to get back in balance, and overall performance. I (mostly) don't use mutual funds. I have selected, for each category, 1 or 2 ETFs. Choosing index ETFs with low expense ratios and a brokerage with cheap or free trades keeps expenses low. (My broker offers free ETF trades if you buy off their list as long as you aren't short-term trading; this is great for rebalancing for free 2 or 3 times a year.) Using ETFs also solves the minimum balance problem -- but watch out for commissions. If you pay $10 to buy $500 worth of an ETF, that's an immediate 2% loss; trade a couple of times a year and that ETF has to gain 5% just to break even. One issue that comes up is managing cash and avoiding transaction fees. Say your IRA has all the growth stock funds and your Roth has the bonds. Stocks do well and bonds do poorly, so you sell off some stocks, which creates a bunch of cash in your IRA. Now you want to buy some bonds but you don't have enough cash in your Roth, so you buy the bonds in your IRA. Not a problem at first but if you don't manage it you can end up with small amounts of various funds spread across all of your accounts. If you're not careful you can end up paying two commissions (in two different accounts) to sell off / purchase enough of a category to get back to your targets. Another problem I had is that only one account (401k) is receiving deposits on a regular basis, and that's all going into an S&P 500 index fund. This makes it so that my allocation is off by a fair amount every quarter or so -- too much in large cap equities, not enough of everything else. My solution to this going forward is to \"\"over-rebalance\"\" a couple of times a year: sell enough SPY from my other accounts so that I'm under-allocated in large caps by the amount I expect to add to my 401k over the next 3 months. (So that in six months at my next rebalancing I'm only 3 months over-allocated to large caps -- plus or minus whatever gains/losses there are.)\"" }, { "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": "370244", "title": "", "text": "Behind the scenes, mutual funds and ETFs are very similar. Both can vary widely in purpose and policies, which is why understanding the prospectus before investing is so important. Since both mutual funds and ETFs cover a wide range of choices, any discussion of management, assets, or expenses when discussing the differences between the two is inaccurate. Mutual funds and ETFs can both be either managed or index-based, high expense or low expense, stock or commodity backed. Method of investing When you invest in a mutual fund, you typically set up an account with the mutual fund company and send your money directly to them. There is often a minimum initial investment required to open your mutual fund account. Mutual funds sometimes, but not always, have a load, which is a fee that you pay either when you put money in or take money out. An ETF is a mutual fund that is traded like a stock. To invest, you need a brokerage account that can buy and sell stocks. When you invest, you pay a transaction fee, just as you would if you purchase a stock. There isn't really a minimum investment required as there is with a traditional mutual fund, but you usually need to purchase whole shares of the ETF. There is inherently no load with ETFs. Tax treatment Mutual funds and ETFs are usually taxed the same. However, capital gain distributions, which are taxable events that occur while you are holding the investment, are more common with mutual funds than they are with ETFs, due to the way that ETFs are structured. (See Fidelity: ETF versus mutual funds: Tax efficiency for more details.) That having been said, in an index fund, capital gain distributions are rare anyway, due to the low turnover of the fund. Conclusion When comparing a mutual fund and ETF with similar objectives and expenses and deciding which to choose, it more often comes down to convenience. If you already have a brokerage account and you are planning on making a one-time investment, an ETF could be more convenient. If, on the other hand, you have more than the minimum initial investment required and you also plan on making additional regular monthly investments, a traditional no-load mutual fund account could be more convenient and less expensive." }, { "docid": "410035", "title": "", "text": "\"Why bother with the ETF? Just trade the options -- at least you have the ability to know what you actually are doing. The \"\"exotic\"\" ETFs the let you \"\"double long\"\" or short indexes aren't options contracts -- they are just collections of unregulated swaps with no transparency. Most of the short/double long ETFs also only attempt to track the security over the course of one day -- you are supposed to trade them daily. Also, you have no guarantee that the ETFs will perform as desired -- even during the course of a single day. IMO, the simplicity of the ETF approach is deceiving.\"" }, { "docid": "230997", "title": "", "text": "\"Back in the olden days, if you wanted to buy the S&P, you had to have a lot of money so you can buy the shares. Then somebody had the bright idea of making a fund that just buys the S&P, and then sells small pieces of it to investor without huge mountains of capital. Enter the ETFs. The guy running the ETF, of course, doesn't do it for free. He skims a little bit of money off the top. This is the \"\"fee\"\". The major S&P ETFs all have tiny fees, in the percents of a percent. If you're buying the index, you're probably looking at gains (or losses) to the tune of 5, 10, 20% - unless you're doing something really silly, you wouldn't even notice the fee. As often happens, when one guy starts doing something and making money, there will immediately be copycats. So now we have competing ETFs all providing the same service. You are technically a competitor as well, since you could compete with all these funds by just buying a basket of shares yourself, thereby running your own private fund for yourself. The reason this stuff even started was that people said, \"\"well why bother with mutual funds when they charge such huge fees and still don't beat the index anyway\"\", so the index ETFs are supposed to be a low cost alternative to mutual funds. Thus one thing ETFs compete on is fees: You can see how VOO has lower fees than SPY and IVV, in keeping with Vanguard's philosophy of minimal management (and management fees). Incidentally, if you buy the shares directly, you wouldn't charge yourself fees, but you would have to pay commissions on each stock and it would destroy you - another benefit of the ETFs. Moreover, these ETFs claim they track the index, but of course there is no real way to peg an asset to another. So they ensure tracking by keeping a carefully curated portfolio. Of course nobody is perfect, and there's tracking error. You can in theory compare the ETFs in this respect and buy the one with the least tracking error. However they all basically track very closely, again the error is fractions of the percent, if it is a legitimate concern in your books then you're not doing index investing right. The actual prices of each fund may vary, but the price hardly matters - the key metric is does it go up 20% when the index goes up 20%? And they all do. So what do you compare them on? Well, typically companies offer people perks to attract them to their own product. If you are a Fidelity customer, and you buy IVV, they will waive your commission if you hold it for a month. I believe Vanguard will also sell VOO for free. But for instance Fidelity will take commission from VOO trades and vice versa. So, this would be your main factor. Though, then again, you can just make an account on Robinhood and they're all commission free. A second factor is reliability of the operator. Frankly, I doubt any of these operators are at all untrustworthy, and you'd be buying your own broker's ETF anyway, and presumably you already went with the most trustworthy broker. Besides that, like I said, there's trivial matters like fees and tracking error, but you might as well just flip a coin. It doesn't really matter.\"" }, { "docid": "145123", "title": "", "text": "great example of levered tracking error is any 2x/3x VIX etf. during periods of high volatility (like last week) you will be able to realize much higher returns on the underlying index as the levered and inverse ETFs are unable to replicate their intended performance using market securities. it is not uncommon to see the VIX up ~30% with levered ETFs only netting ~10-12% as opposed to the intended 60 or 90%, for example" } ]

[ { "docid": "206744", "title": "", "text": "In your other question about these funds you quoted two very different yields for them. That pretty clearly says they are NOT tracking the same index." } ]

[ { "docid": "144005", "title": "", "text": "As I write this, the NASDAQ Composite is at 2790.00, down 6.14 points from yesterday. To calculate the percentage, you take 6.14 and divide by yesterday's close of 2796.14 to yield 0.22%. In your example, if SPY drops from 133.68 to 133.32, you use the difference of -0.36 and divide by the original, i.e. -0.36/133.68 = -0.27%. SPY is an ETF which you can invest in that tracks the S&P 500 index. Ideally, the index would have dropped the same percentage as SPY, but the points would be different (~10x higher). To answer your question about how one qualifies a point, it completely depends on the index being discussed. For example, the S&P 500 is a market-capitalization weighted index of the common stock of 500 large-cap US public companies. It is as if you owned every share of each of the 500 companies, then divide by some large constant to create a number that's easily understood mentally (i.e. 1330). The NASDAQ Composite used the same methodology but includes practically all stocks listed on the NASDAQ. Meanwhile, the Dow Jones Industrial Average is a price-weighted index of 30 large-cap companies. It's final value is modified using a divisor known as the Dow Divisor, which accounts for stock splits and similar events that have occurred since a stock has joined the index. Thus, points when referring to an index do not typically represent dollars. Rather, they serve as a quantitative measure of how the market is doing based on the performance of the index constituents. ETFs like SPY add a layer of abstraction by creating an investible vehicle that ideally tracks the value of the underlying index directly. Finally, neither price nor index value is related to volume. Volume is a raw measurement of the total number of shares traded for a given stock or the aggregate for a given exchange. Hope this helps!" }, { "docid": "366847", "title": "", "text": "\"private investors that don't have the time or expertise for active investment. This may be known as every private investor. An index fund ensures average returns. The bulk of active trading is done by private institutions with bucketloads of experts studying the markets and AI scraping every bit of data it can get (from the news, stock market, the weather reports, etc...). Because of that, to get above average returns an average percent of the time, singular private investors have to drastically beat the average large team of individuals/software. Now that index ETF are becoming so fashionable, could there be a tipping point at which the market signals that active investors send become so diluted that this \"\"index ETF parasitism\"\" collapses? How would this look like and would it affect only those who invest in index ETF or would it affect the stock market more generally? To make this question perhaps more on-topic: Is the fact (or presumption) that index ETF rely indirectly on active investment decisions by other market participants, as explained above, a known source of concern for personal investment? This is a well-covered topic. Some people think this will be an issue. Others point out that it is a hard issue to bootstrap. I gravitate to this view. A small active market can support a large number of passive investors. If the number of active investors ever got too low, the gains & likelihood of gains that could be made from being an active investor would rise and generate more active investors. Private investing makes sense in a few cases. One example is ethics. Some people may not want to be invested, even indirectly, in certain companies.\"" }, { "docid": "151741", "title": "", "text": "\"Paying the mortgage down is no different than investing in a long term taxable fixed instrument. In this economy, 4.7% isn't bad, but longer term, the stock market should return higher. When you have the kid(s), is your wife planing to work? If not, I'd first suggest going pre-tax on the IRAs, and when she's not working, convert to Roth. I'd advise against starting the 529 accounts until your child(ren) is actually born. As far as managed funds are concerned, I hear \"\"expenses.\"\" Why not learn about lower cost funds, index mutual funds or ETFs? I'd not do too much different aside from this, until the kids are born.\"" }, { "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": "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": "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": "462984", "title": "", "text": "\"Vanguard has a Vanguard FTSE Social Index Fund. Their web page says \"\"Some individuals choose investments based on social and personal beliefs. For this type of investor, we have offered Vanguard FTSE Social Index Fund since 2000. This low-cost fund seeks to track a benchmark of large- and mid-capitalization stocks that have been screened for certain social, human rights, and environmental criteria. In addition to stock market volatility, one of the fund’s other key risks is that this socially conscious approach may produce returns that diverge from those of the broad market.\"\" It looks like it would meet the qualifications you require, plus Vanguard funds usually have very low fees.\"" }, { "docid": "570247", "title": "", "text": "Barclays offers an iPath ETN (not quite an ETF), DJP, which tracks the total return of the Dow Jones-AIG Commodity Index." }, { "docid": "370244", "title": "", "text": "Behind the scenes, mutual funds and ETFs are very similar. Both can vary widely in purpose and policies, which is why understanding the prospectus before investing is so important. Since both mutual funds and ETFs cover a wide range of choices, any discussion of management, assets, or expenses when discussing the differences between the two is inaccurate. Mutual funds and ETFs can both be either managed or index-based, high expense or low expense, stock or commodity backed. Method of investing When you invest in a mutual fund, you typically set up an account with the mutual fund company and send your money directly to them. There is often a minimum initial investment required to open your mutual fund account. Mutual funds sometimes, but not always, have a load, which is a fee that you pay either when you put money in or take money out. An ETF is a mutual fund that is traded like a stock. To invest, you need a brokerage account that can buy and sell stocks. When you invest, you pay a transaction fee, just as you would if you purchase a stock. There isn't really a minimum investment required as there is with a traditional mutual fund, but you usually need to purchase whole shares of the ETF. There is inherently no load with ETFs. Tax treatment Mutual funds and ETFs are usually taxed the same. However, capital gain distributions, which are taxable events that occur while you are holding the investment, are more common with mutual funds than they are with ETFs, due to the way that ETFs are structured. (See Fidelity: ETF versus mutual funds: Tax efficiency for more details.) That having been said, in an index fund, capital gain distributions are rare anyway, due to the low turnover of the fund. Conclusion When comparing a mutual fund and ETF with similar objectives and expenses and deciding which to choose, it more often comes down to convenience. If you already have a brokerage account and you are planning on making a one-time investment, an ETF could be more convenient. If, on the other hand, you have more than the minimum initial investment required and you also plan on making additional regular monthly investments, a traditional no-load mutual fund account could be more convenient and less expensive." }, { "docid": "510328", "title": "", "text": "\"Liquidity is highly correlated to efficiency primarily because if an asset's price is not sampled during the time of a trade, it's price is unknown therefore inefficient. Past prices can be referenced, but they are not the price of the present. Prices of substitutes are even worse. SPY is extremely efficient for an equity. If permitted, it could easily trade with much lower ticks and still have potential for a locked market. Ideal exchange An ideal exchange has no public restrictions on trade. This is not to say that private restrictions would need to be put in place for various reasons, but one would only do that if it were responsible for its own survival instead of being too big to fail. In this market, trades would be approximately continuous for the largest securities and almost always locked because of continuous exchange fee competition with ever dropping minimum ticks. A market that can provide continuous locked orders with infinite precision is perfectly efficient from the point of view of the investor because the value of one's holdings are always known. EMH In terms of the theory the Efficient Market Hypothesis this is irrelevant to the rational investor. The rational investor will invest in the market at large of a given asset class, only increasing risk as wealth increases thus moving to more volatile asset classes when the volatility can be absorbed by excess wealth. Here, liquidity is also helpful, the \"\"two heads are better than one\"\" way of thinking. The more invested in an asset class, the lower the class's variance and vice versa. Bonds, the least variant, dwarf equities which dwarf options, all in order of the least variance. Believe it or not, there was a day when bonds were almost as risky as equities. For those concerned with EMH, liquidity is also believed to increase efficiency in some forms because liquidity is proportional to the number of individuals invested thus reducing the likelihood of an insufficient number of participants. External inefficiency In the case of ETFs that do not perfectly track their underlying index less costs at all times between index changes, this is because they are forbidden from directly trading in the market on their own behalf. If they were allowed and honest, the price would always be perfect and much more liquid than it otherwise should be since the combined frequency of all index members is much higher than any one alone. If one was dishonest, it would try to defraud with higher or lower numbers; however, if insider trading were permitted, both would fail due to the prisoner's dilemma that there is no honor among thieves. Here, the market would detect the problem much sooner because the insiders would arbitrage the false price away. Indirect internal efficiency Taking emerging market ETFs as an example, the markets that those are invested into are heavily restricted, so their ETF to underlying price inefficiencies are more pronounced even though the ETFs are actually working to make those underlying markets more efficient because a price for them altogether is known.\"" }, { "docid": "598238", "title": "", "text": "\"In an attempt to express this complicated fact in lay terms I shall focus exclusively on the most influential factor effecting the seemingly bizarre outcome you have noted, where the price chart of VIX ETFs indicates upwards of a 99% decrease since inception. Other factors include transaction costs and management fees. Some VIX ETFs also provide leveraged returns, describing themselves as \"\"two times VIX\"\" or \"\"three times VIX\"\", etc. Regarding the claim that volatility averages out over time, this is supported by your own chart of the spot VIX index. EDIT It should be noted that (almost) nobody holds VIX ETFs for anything more than a day or two. This will miminise the effects described above. Typical daily volumes of VIX ETFs are in excess of 100% of shares outstanding. In very volatile markets, daily volumes will often exceed 400% of shares outstanding indicating an overwhelming amount of day trading.\"" }, { "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": "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": "519963", "title": "", "text": "I don't think it has to be either-or. You can profitably invest inside the SIMPLE. (Though I wouldn't put in any more than the 1% it takes to get the match.) Let's look at some scenarios. These assume salary of $50k/year so the numbers are easy. You can fill in your own numbers to see the outcome, but the percentages will be the same. Let it sit in cash in the SIMPLE. You put in 1%, your employer matches with 1%. Your account balance is $1,000 (at the end of the year), plus a small amount of interest. Cost to you is $500 from your gross pay. 100% return on your contributions, yay! Likely 0-1% real returns going forward; you'll be lucky to keep up with inflation over the long term. Short term not so bad. Buy shares of index ETFs in the SIMPLE; let's assume the fee works out to 10%. You put in 1%, employer matches 1%. Your contributions are $500, fees are $100, your balance is $900 in ETFs. 80% instant return, and possible 6-7% real long term returns going forward. Buy funds in the SIMPLE; assume the load is 5%, management fee is 1% and you can find something that behaves like an index fund (so it is theoretically comparable to above). 1% from you, 1% from employer. Your contributions are $500, load fees are $50, your balance is $950. 90% instant return, and possible 5-6% real long term returns going forward (assuming the 6-7% real returns of equities are reduced by the 1% management fee). (You didn't list out the fees, and they're probably different for the different fund choices, so fill in your own details and do the math.) Invest outside the SIMPLE in the same ETFs or equivalent no load index funds; let's assume you can do this with no fees. You put in the same 1% of your gross (ignoring any difference that might come from paying FICA) into a self directed traditional IRA. At the end of the year the balance is $500. So deciding whether or not to take the match is a no brainer: take it. Deciding whether you should hold cash, ETFs, or (one of two types of) funds in your SIMPLE is a little trickier." }, { "docid": "7208", "title": "", "text": "Some other suggestions: Index-tracking mutual funds. These have the same exposure as ETFs, but may have different costs; for example, my investment manager (in the UK) charges a transaction fee on ETFs, but not funds, but caps platform fees on ETFs and not funds! Target date funds. If you are saving for a particular date (often retirement, but could also be buying a house, kids going to college, mid-life crisis motorbike purchase, a luxury cruise to see an eclipse, etc), these will automatically rebalance the investment from risk-tolerant (ie equities) to risk-averse (ie fixed income) as the date approaches. You can get reasonably low fees from Vanguard, and i imagine others. Income funds/ETFs, focusing on stocks which are expected to pay a good dividend. The idea is that a consistent dividend helps smooth out volatility in prices, giving you a more consistent return. Historically, that worked pretty well, but given fees and the current low yields, it might not be smart right now. That said Vanguard Equity Income costs 0.17%, and i think yields 2.73%, which isn't bad." }, { "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": "516148", "title": "", "text": "\"I was able to find a fairly decent index that trades very close to 1/10th the actual price of gold by the ounce. The difference may be accounted to the indexes operating cost, as it is very low, about 0.1%. The index is the ETFS Gold Trust index (SGOL). By using the SGOL index, along with a Standard Brokerage investment account, I was able to set up an investment that appropriately tracked my gold \"\"shares\"\" as 10x their weight in ounces, the share cost as 1/10th the value of a gold ounce at the time of purchase, and the original cost at time of purchase as the cost basis. There tends to be a 0.1% loss every time I enter a transaction, I'm assuming due to the index value difference against the actual spot value of the price of gold for any day, probably due to their operating costs. This solution should work pretty well, as this particular index closely follows the gold price, and should reflect an investment in gold over a long term very well. It is not 100% accurate, but it is accurate enough that you don't lose 2-3% every time you enter a new transaction, which would skew long-term results with regular purchases by a fair amount.\"" }, { "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": "94076", "title": "", "text": "index ETF tracks indented index (if fund manager spend all money on Premium Pokemon Trading Cards someone must cover resulting losses) Most Index ETF are passively managed. ie a computer algorithm would do automatic trades. The role of fund manager is limited. There are controls adopted by the institution that generally do allow such wide deviations, it would quickly be flagged and reported. Most financial institutions have keyman fraud insurance. fees are not higher that specified in prospectus Most countries have regulation where fees need to be reported and cannot exceed the guideline specified. at least theoretically possible to end with ETF shares that for weeks cannot be sold Yes some ETF's can be illiquid at difficult to sell. Hence its important to invest in ETF that are very liquid." } ]

[ { "docid": "523913", "title": "", "text": "I think an IOPT is a Dutch warrant. Someone else might understand what this is." } ]

[ { "docid": "190756", "title": "", "text": "Depending on the currencies you want to trade there are mini-futures available with a contract value of 12.500 (for example EUR/USD) or standard futures with a contract value of 125.000. You will find an overview at the Globex CME website For a broker to trade the futures I would recommend Interactive Brokers. They offer real-time trading at very low commission." }, { "docid": "29386", "title": "", "text": "Lightning is one of the most devastating natural phenomena and a direct strike will damage anything and everything on its way. Lightning Eliminators &amp; Consultant Inc. installs a wide range of lightning protection products to divert a strike away from the structure and equipment. These products are designed to prevent physical damage to people, structural damage to buildings and protect against internal system equipment failure. Get more details on lightning protection products: http://forum.nordicgames.at/members/179160-MaxLewis" }, { "docid": "260129", "title": "", "text": "Email list brokers are valuable tools to make use of, specially if you are a small business owner or marketing consultant. A list broker is an expert who acts as an agent for individuals or enterprise that want to need direct marketing as a way to attain prospective customers." }, { "docid": "268107", "title": "", "text": "Yeah, you can presume anything you want. I'm not going to spend the rest of the night refuting a wall of words that will only generate another wall of words that I will then have to spend the rest of the night refuting. So by sheer might of bullshit, you win. You are right about one thing though, Somalia is an example of a failed government. You seem to want our government to fail as well. What I meant by saying that Somalia is a government free utopia is that they do not collect taxes, they do not regulate their businesses, and they have no influence on the lives of their citizens, which as far as I can tell is exactly what you are advocating for the US. Do you know what to call it when people structure their interactions in order to cooperate? The word is Government." }, { "docid": "304276", "title": "", "text": "\"The answer, like many answers, is \"\"it depends\"\". Specifically, it depends on the broker, and the type of account you have with the broker. Most brokers will charge you once per transaction, so a commission on the buy, and a commission (and SEC fee in the US) on the sale. However, if you place a Good-til-Canceled (GTC) order, and it's partially filled one day, then partially filled another day, you'll be charged two commissions. There are other brokers (FolioFN comes to mind) that either have trading \"\"windows\"\", where you can make any number of trades within that window, or that have a fixed monthly fee, giving you any (probably with some upper limit) number of trades per month. There are other brokers (Interactive Brokers for example), that charge you the standard commission on buy and another commission and fee on sell, but can refund you some of that commission for making a market in the security, and pay you to borrow the securities. So the usual answer is \"\"two commissions\"\", but that's not universal. However, while commissions are important, with discount brokers, you'll find the percent you're paying for commissions is minimal, which losses due to slippage and poor execution can swamp.\"" }, { "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": "450099", "title": "", "text": "\"VIV.PA - is Vivendi listed on a stock exchange in Paris VIVEF - is Vivendi listed on the OTC Other Exchange. VIVHY - is Listed on the OTC:Pink Sheets. A company can be listed on multiple exchanges, they are known as a dual-listed company. It's a corporate structure in which two corporations function as a single operating business through a legal equalization agreement, but retain separate legal identities and stock exchange listings. Pretty much all DLCs are cross-border, and have tax advantages for the corporations and their stockholders. When a DLC is created, in essence two companies are created and have two separate bodies of shareholders, but they agree to share all the risks and rewards of the ownership of all their operating businesses in a fixed proportion, laid out in a contract called an \"\"equalization agreement\"\". The shares of a DLC parents have claim to the exact same underlying cash flows. So in theory the stock prices of these companies should move exactly the same. However in practice there can be differences between these prices. More info on OTC exchanges can be found here - keep in mind this info is from the company that runs these listings. Over the counter stocks are held to a FAR lesser regulation standard. I would recommend doing further interdependent research before pursuing any action.\"" }, { "docid": "213824", "title": "", "text": "\"HSBC Hong Kong's “Deposit Plus” Product\"\" the same as \"\"Dual Currency Product\"\" . it's Currency link Sell base Currency Call / Alternative Currency Put FX Option It's not protected by the Deposit Insurance System in HK You can search Key Word \"\"Dual Currency Product\"\" & \"\"Dual Currency Investment\"\" & \"\"Dual Currency Deposit\"\" The only one of the world's foreign exchange structured product book 『雙元貨幣產品 Dual Currency Product』 ISBN 9789574181506\"" }, { "docid": "192910", "title": "", "text": "This very informative link gives a clear and comprehensive comparison (pros and cons) of various popular brokers: https://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/investing/best-online-brokers-for-stock-trading/ (Best Online Brokers for Stock Trading 2016) There are indeed some significant cons for the super-low commission fee. Just for a quick example, the Interactive Broker requires a minimum of 10k account balance, as well as the frequent trading activity even on monthly basis (or the minimum $10 commission would be charged)." }, { "docid": "327814", "title": "", "text": "First utilize a security screener to identify the security profiles you are looking to identify for identifying your target securities for shorting. Most online brokers have stock screeners that you can utilize. At this point you may want to look at your target list of securities to find out those that are eligible for shorting. The SHO thresold list is also a good place to look for securities that are hard to borrow to eliminate potential target securities. http://regsho.finra.org/regsho-Index.html Also your broker can let you know the stocks that are available for borrowing. You can then take your target securities and then you can look at the corporate filings on the SEC's Edgar site to look for the key words you are looking for. I would suggest that you utilize XBRL so you can electronically run your key word searched in an automated manner. I would further suggest that you can run the key word XBRL daily for issuer filings of your target list of securities. Additional word searches you may want to consider are those that could indicate a dilution of the companies stock such as the issuance of convertible debt. Also the below link detailing real short interest may be helpful. Clearing firms are required to report short interest every two weeks. http://www.nasdaq.com/quotes/short-interest.aspx" }, { "docid": "478736", "title": "", "text": "There are some brokers in the US who would be happy to open an account for non-US residents, allowing you to trade stocks at NYSE and other US Exchanges. Some of them, along with some facts: DriveWealth Has support in Portuguese Website TD Ameritrade Has support in Portuguese Website Interactive Brokers Account opening is not that straightforward Website" }, { "docid": "120735", "title": "", "text": "Probably because at this point they have an extremely limited use. I use my Amazon Echo to play music, set alarms/timers, and track my grocery list. Those are convenient, but I don't NEED one. The advertised function of asking a question doesn't work very well, and until you can interact with it as more of an AI device then people won't truly rely on them." }, { "docid": "87535", "title": "", "text": "I don't quite understand the NYSE argument that the credit system helps NASDAQ undercut NYSE on pricing and force brokers to trade on NASDAQ. I thought if you were trading a stock listed on NASDAQ, you traded through them and if you were trading a stock listed on NYSE, you'd trade over there. The choice of exchange coming down to the stocks you want to trade more than anything. Are the exchanges also acting as endpoints on trades for securities listed on the other exchange?" }, { "docid": "520952", "title": "", "text": "\"This type of structured product is called a capital protection product. It's like an insurance product - where you give up some upside for protection against losses in certain cases. From the bank's perspective they take your investment, treat it as an \"\"interest-free loan\"\" and buy derivatives (like options) that give them an expected return greater then They make their money: With this product, you are giving up some potential upside in order to protect against losses (other than catastrophic losses if the lower index drops by 50% or more). What's the catch? There's not really a catch. It's a lot like insurance, you might come out ahead (e.g. if the market goes down less than 50%), but you might also give up some upside. The bank will sell enough of these in various flavors to reduce their risk overall (losses in your product will be covered by gains in another). Note that this product won't necessarily sell for $1,000. You might have to pay $1,100 (or $1,005, or whatever the bank can get people to buy them for) for each note whenever it's released. That's where the gain or loss comes into play. If you pay $1,100 but only get $1,000 back because the index didn't go up (or went down) you'd have a net loss of $100. It's subtle, but it is in the prospectus: The estimated value of the notes is only an estimate determined by reference to several factors. The original issue price of the notes will exceed the estimated value of the notes because costs associated with selling, structuring and hedging the notes are included in the original issue price of the notes. These costs include the selling commissions, the projected profits, if any, that our affiliates expect to realize for assuming risks inherent in hedging our obligations under the notes and the estimated cost of hedging our obligations under the notes.\"" }, { "docid": "546122", "title": "", "text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://wol.iza.org/articles/do-social-interactions-in-workplace-lead-to-productivity-spillover-among-co-workers) reduced by 70%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; Should one expect a worker&amp;#039;s productivity, and thus wage, to depend on the productivity of his/her co-workers in the same workplace, even if the workers carry out completely independent tasks and do not engage in team work? This may well be the case because social interaction among co-workers can lead to productivity spillover through knowledge spillover or peer pressure. &gt; The available empirical evidence suggests that, due to such peer effects, co-worker productivity positively affects a worker&amp;#039;s own productivity and wage, particularly in lower-skilled occupations. &gt; Evidence suggests that peer pressure affects productivity and is an important reason why workers&amp;#039; wages and productivity depend on their co-workers&amp;#039; productivity. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/77o9hf/do_social_interactions_in_the_workplace_lead_to/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~231949 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*: **productivity**^#1 **work**^#2 **peer**^#3 **spillover**^#4 **co-worker**^#5\"" }, { "docid": "27716", "title": "", "text": "If you want direct access trading that is very hard to get. However an active trading broker like interactive brokers, Trade station, or Light speed trading may be what you are looking for. If you have serious cash though value or income investing is better than trading which is pure speculation. I know that active trading can be exciting but it's also basically gambling when compared to research based long term investment. You can't fight the market makers, the guys on the dealer desks have way too many advantages over you. Just give this all some thought and see what you want to do." }, { "docid": "285124", "title": "", "text": "&gt;Goldman Sachs’s asset-management unit bought the securities, sold by Petroleos de Venezuela SA, through a broker and had no interaction with the government, the New York-based firm said in a statement. Source: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-05-30/goldman-sachs-faces-venezuela-probe-protest-after-bond-purchase Purchasing these bonds on the secondary market and from PDVSA are not mutually exclusive. Quit being a dick." }, { "docid": "153185", "title": "", "text": "\"If the price used to be 2.50 but by the time you get in an order it's 2.80, you're going to have to pay 2.80. You can't say, \"\"I want to buy it at the price from an hour ago\"\". If you could, everybody would wait for the price to go up, then buy at the old price and have an instant guaranteed profit. Well, except that when you tried to sell, I suppose the buyer could say, \"\"I want to pay the lower price from last July\"\". So no, you always buy or sell at the current price. If you submit an order after the markets close, your broker should buy the stock for you as soon as possible the next morning. There's no strict queue. There are thousands of brokers out there, they don't take turns. So if your broker has 1000 orders and you are number 1000 on his list, while some other broker has 2 orders and number 1 is someone else wanting to buy the same stock, then even if you got your order in first, the other guy will probably get the first buy. LIFO and FIFO refer to any sort of list or queue, but don't really make sense here. When the market opens a broker has a list of orders he received overnight, which he might think of as a queue. He presumably works his way down the list. But whether he follows a strict and simple first-in-first-out, or does biggest orders first, or does buys for stocks he expects to go up today and sells for stocks he expects to go down today first, or what, I don't know. Does anybody on this forum know, are there rules that say brokers have to go through the overnight orders FIFO, or what is the common practice?\"" }, { "docid": "586018", "title": "", "text": "Option tiers are broker specific, according mostly to their business model and presumably within the bounds of FINRA Rule 2111 (Suitability). The tier system can be as complex as E*Trade or as simple as none with Interactive Brokers. The suitability is determined presumably by compliance presumably by the legal history of the rule. The exact reasoning is political, effected by the relevant party composition of the legislature and executive. The full legal history will have the judiciary's interpretations of legislation and policy. Cash and margin rules are dictated primarily by the Federal Reserve and more precisely by FINRA and the SEC. This is the only distinction made by IB." } ]

[ { "docid": "326991", "title": "", "text": "\"Interactive Brokers offers global securities trading. Notice that the security types are: cash, stock (STK), futures (FUT), options (OPT), futures options (FOP), warrants (WAR), bonds, contracts for differences (CFD), or Dutch warrants (IOPT) There is a distinction between options (OPT), warrants (WAR), options on futures (FOP) and finally, Dutch Warrants (IOPT). IOPT is intuitively similar to an \"\"index option\"\". (For index option valuation equations, iopt=1 for a call, and iopt= -1 for a put. I don't know if Interactive Brokers uses that convention). What is the difference between a \"\"Dutch Warrant\"\" and an option or warrant? Dutch warrants aren't analogous to Dutch auctions e.g. in the U.S.Treasury bond market. For North America, Interactive Brokers only lists commissions for traditional warrants and options, that is, warrants and options that have a single stock as the underlying security. For Asia and Europe, Interactive Brokers lists both the \"\"regular\"\" options (and warrants) as well as \"\"equity index options\"\", see commission schedule. Dutch warrants are actually more like options than warrants, and that may be why Interactive Brokers refers to them as IOPTS (index options). Here's some background from a research article about Dutch warrants (which was NOT easy to find): In the Netherlands, ING Bank introduced call and put warrants on the FT-SE 100, the CAC 40 and the German DAX indexes. These are some differences between [Dutch] index warrants and exchange traded index options: That last point is the most important, as it makes the pricing and valuation less subject to arbitrage. Last part of the question: Where do you find Structured Products on Interactive Brokers website? Look on the Products page (rather than the Commissions page, which does't mention Structured Products at all). There is a Structured Products tab with details.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "522907", "title": "", "text": "\"Good question! It seems to me that there is no minimum order size for shares trading on the LSE. Please note, I couldn't find an definite answer, but: According to the \"\"International Order Book\"\" document (see: http://www.londonstockexchange.com/traders-and-brokers/rules-regulations/change-and-updates/stock-exchange-notices/2010/n2210_attach1.pdf) from the LSE (page 7): Question 7: Would respondents support a revision of the minimum order size of 50 units? Whilst there was limited support for a low value based minimum order size the majority of respondents requested its complete removal. This was incorporated into the September 2010 quarterly review as per Service Announcement 001/100910 and as from 20 September 2010, the minimum order size in all IOB securities has been 1 unit Even though not all trading on the LSE is performed on this IOB system, it would be very wierd if the international stocks can be traded in any size, while domestic stocks will have an minimum size. Further, consider looking to the times and sales of various stocks (here you can find an example http://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/prices-and-markets/stocks/exchange-insight/trade-data.html?page=0&fourWayKey=GB0006731235GBGBXSET1&formName=frmRow&upToRow=-1). Those trades also suggest that there is no minimum order size (for example, I just saw an executed trade with an size of 13). At last, look at the Interactive Brokers (no relationship with) Exchange List at http://www.interactivebrokers.com/en/trading/exchanges.php?exch=lse&showcategories=&ib_entity=llc. Here you can click on various stock names, and in the popup window that opens, look for 'size parameters' and the size increment. I could only find stocks with an size increment of 1 (i.e. you can trade anything with a minimum of 1 stock, and more needs to be in steps of 1 stock). Even though I couldn't find official information on the LSE site (like a leaflet for beginners or such), it does seem to me that you can trade any size you want on LSE. Please note that mutual funds and illiquid OTC stocks which don't have an continuous market can have different rules, so double-check with your broker.\"" }, { "docid": "367029", "title": "", "text": "\"When I was getting my Business Admin degree, WFM was the hot thing because of the current \"\"green revolution\"\" and I had tons of access to management at all levels because of my job. So I pretty much built all the work on my degree around them. Nothing quite like having interviews with regional buyers and store managers as a primary source on a paper or project. Quite frankly, I think Mackey was pretty much just lucky. Most of the people I interacted with while I worked there had zero sense when it came to any sort of long term strategic positioning within the industry (which is why the activist investors have been pushing to get Mackey to sell). Now that they've actually begun to have competent competition, the cracks have really started to show. Honestly, instead of trying to expand at a breakneck pace like they started to five-seven years, they should have looked internally and instead begun to examine all the cost-saving measures they could on their supply-chain, management structure, and IT systems while they were the darling of both consumers and the markets, and had the profits. Instead, they attempted to triple the size of the business in just a decade (funded by increasing the prices of their products even more), and really destroyed all the cultural goodwill they had going for them. Then they started expanding into areas that weren't as affluent, trying to do these longshot deals with no cohesive strategy other than \"\"people like us, they'll show up.\"\" Seven or eight years ago, people were excited when they heard I worked for Whole Foods, and wanted to ask me a million questions. Now they find out I worked at Whole Foods and they're just like \"\"Fucking A that place is insanely expensive, and all the employees seem miserable.\"\"\"" }, { "docid": "217076", "title": "", "text": "\"I'm a big believer in to-do lists, particularly dividing them up into weekly, monthy and of course, yearly goals/objectives. Not only does it press you into thinking \"\"what do I want to achieve with my time\"\", you start pursuing goals in more structured, coherent manner. I reccomend everyone, especially those with a predisposition to being easily distracted to start up a list, you'll be a lot more compelled to see things through to completion as opposed to making to empty, hollow promises to yourself/loved ones.\"" }, { "docid": "65894", "title": "", "text": "Since I've been doing this since late 03 I have colo machines in Chicago and NYC, and have direct exchange data feeds etc. I mentioned in a prior post though, for someone starting out on algorithmic trading, I'd recommend Nanex for tick data and Interactive Brokers for your brokerage account. IB has a robust and easy to use API. It won't let you do the most low latency stuff bc you can't colo at the exchange and have to clear through their order management systems but if you are looking at opportunities that exist in the market in excess of 50ms it's probably a good place to start. If not, go Lightspeed imo, but that'll cost you on the colo/data a lot more." }, { "docid": "235015", "title": "", "text": "\"Real-time equity (or any other market) data is not available for free anywhere in the US. It is always delayed by 10-15 minutes. On the other hand, online brokers who target the \"\"day trader\"\" (Interactive Brokers, TD Ameritrade, etc.) offer much closer to real-time data AND feature all the tools/alerts/charts/etc. you could ever possibly dream of. I bet the type of alert you're asking for is available with just a couple of clicks on one of these brokers' platforms. Of course, accounts with these online brokers are not free; you must pay for these sophisticated tools and fast market access. Another down side is that the data feeds sent to you by even the most sophisticated online broker are still delayed by tens of seconds compared to the data feeds used by big banks and professional investors. Not to mention that the investment arm of the broker you use will be making its own trades based on the data feeds before relaying them on to you. So this begs the question: why do you need real-time information? Are you trying to \"\"day trade\"\" -- i.e. profit from minute-to-minute fluctuations in the stock market? (I can't in good conscience recommend that, but best of luck to you.) If on the other hand you don't truly need \"\"real-time\"\" data for your application, then I support @ChrisDegnen's approach -- use public data feeds and write your own software. You probably will not find any free tools for the sort of alerting you're looking for because most folks who want these types of alerts also need faster feeds and are therefore already using an online broker's tools.\"" }, { "docid": "582048", "title": "", "text": "To start trading at a minimum you need 3 things; Bank Account: This again is not must, but most preferred to transact. Quite a few broker would insist on this. Demat Account: This is must as all shares on NSE are held electronically. The custodians are CSDL or NSDL both Government entities. These don't offer services directly to customer, but via other financial institutions like Banks and Large Brokers. Broker Account: This is required to buy or sell securities. If you are only buying in IPO, this is not required as one can directly participate in IPO and Broker is not involved. However if you want to buy and sell on NSE you would need a broker account. Quite a few financial institutes offer all 3 services or 2 services [Demat/Broker]. The fee structure and online service etc are differentiators. You can take a look at options and decide the best one to use." }, { "docid": "595796", "title": "", "text": "The Brokerage firm will purchase shares for the dividend paid in a omnibus account for the security of the issuer and then they will distribute fractional shares among all their clients that chose Div Reinvest. They will only have to buy 1 extra share to account for the fractional portion of what they allocate. The structure of the market does not permit trading of fractional shares. There is generally not any impact to the market place for Div Reinvest with the exception of certain securities that pay large dividends that are not liquid. sometimes this occurs in preferred securities where a large amount of Div reinvestment could create a large market order that has market impact. Most brokers place market orders for the opening on the day following the payment of the dividend. When you sell the fractional portion same process as full shares are sold into the market and the fractional if traded between you and the brokers omnibus account. if it creates a full share for the broker (omnibus has .6 shares and you sell him .5 they would likely flip that out to the street with the full share portion of your order. This would not have impact to outstanding shares and all cost are operational and with the broker handling the Div reinvestment service." }, { "docid": "190756", "title": "", "text": "Depending on the currencies you want to trade there are mini-futures available with a contract value of 12.500 (for example EUR/USD) or standard futures with a contract value of 125.000. You will find an overview at the Globex CME website For a broker to trade the futures I would recommend Interactive Brokers. They offer real-time trading at very low commission." }, { "docid": "526847", "title": "", "text": "I had this problem when I finished my job in Canada in Sept 2013. You'll likely have to open the account in person in Canada, at least if you don't already have a relationship with a broker there. DO NOT go to Virtual Brokers. They told me that my US citizenship was no problem, but right before I left Canada to double check. It wasn't until I asked specifically which US states they were licensed in that they realized they were licensed in NO US STATES. They told me that they'd freeze my account when I left. I then moved my (former) pension to a locked-in RRSP at BMO. As of September 2010 BMO could handle residents of most US states, but it took some tooth pulling to get the list out of them. However, after I flew to the USA, BMO called to demand more ID. My account was frozen until I flew back to Canada in person just to show ID. Annoyed, I closed the BMO account and moved it to TD Waterhouse. TD waterhouse can handle accounts for residents of all the US states EXCEPT Virginia, Louisiana, and Nebraska. (I only got the complete list of exceptions when I made my first trade, since the guys at the trading desk are much more knowledgeable about such things than the guys in the branch.) TD was extremely friendly about my USA citizenship/residence. (Many Canadian brokers simply won't accept US residents, at least as of the end of 2013.) Whichever broker you choose, BRING LOTS MORE ID than they require. Insist that they zerox it all. Make sure to include your social security card. You don't want them to demand more ID after you've left the country, like BMO did. They may even make such a move simply to get rid of US customers, because the FATCA is a pain for foreign banks." }, { "docid": "260129", "title": "", "text": "Email list brokers are valuable tools to make use of, specially if you are a small business owner or marketing consultant. A list broker is an expert who acts as an agent for individuals or enterprise that want to need direct marketing as a way to attain prospective customers." }, { "docid": "400449", "title": "", "text": "\"I am a realtor. When I am approached directly by a buyer, it's their choice to bring their own agent, come unrepresented, or buy through us via disclosed dual agency. With no buyer agent, my office and I get the full commission. The seller has already agreed to a fixed percent of the sale price. How does it benefit me to agree to this? Update From all the comments below, I'll add this. The Realtor site (country-wide) states \"\"A real estate professional can also agree to rebate a portion of his/her commission to a consumer. However, note that some states do have laws prohibiting the payments of rebates to unlicensed individuals, and so this would not be legal in those jurisdictions.\"\" So far, so good. My own state, Massachusetts, says Inducements or rebates to the seller or buyer are permissible given that the seller or buyer in the transaction is a principal and is not required to be licensed as a broker. Brokers are, by definition, agents for either the seller or buyer. Consequently, using inducements to attract listings or giving incentives such as rebates for those who purchase a listed property do not violate the prohibition on sharing valuable consideration with those who are brokering without the benefit of a license. The sellers and buyers in purchase and sale transactions are not acting for anyone else and, therefore, are not brokering. Indeed, it is their broker who acts on their behalf. Thus, in my state, what OP asks for is legal, and a matter of whether or not either broker wishes to participate. If another member wishes to research NY laws, that would be great.\"" }, { "docid": "593029", "title": "", "text": "You are in a difficult situation because of US regulation, that is much more demanding to fulfill than in EU or rest of the world. Second, Interactive Brokers stopped serving FX for US clients. Third, EU brokers - like Saxo Bank - don't accept US clients: Almost any private client can open an account with Saxo Bank, although there are few exceptions. You can’t open an account if you are US, Iranian or North Korean resident - Brokerchooser: Saxo Bank Review Working for Brokerchooser, I would say you are limited to Oanda or Gain Capital. The latter is an ECN broker, and operates through other white label partners, you could try Forex.com also." }, { "docid": "546122", "title": "", "text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://wol.iza.org/articles/do-social-interactions-in-workplace-lead-to-productivity-spillover-among-co-workers) reduced by 70%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; Should one expect a worker&amp;#039;s productivity, and thus wage, to depend on the productivity of his/her co-workers in the same workplace, even if the workers carry out completely independent tasks and do not engage in team work? This may well be the case because social interaction among co-workers can lead to productivity spillover through knowledge spillover or peer pressure. &gt; The available empirical evidence suggests that, due to such peer effects, co-worker productivity positively affects a worker&amp;#039;s own productivity and wage, particularly in lower-skilled occupations. &gt; Evidence suggests that peer pressure affects productivity and is an important reason why workers&amp;#039; wages and productivity depend on their co-workers&amp;#039; productivity. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/77o9hf/do_social_interactions_in_the_workplace_lead_to/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~231949 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*: **productivity**^#1 **work**^#2 **peer**^#3 **spillover**^#4 **co-worker**^#5\"" }, { "docid": "328699", "title": "", "text": "\"The London Stock Exchange offers a wealth of exchange traded products whose variety matches those offered in the US. Here is a link to a list of exchange traded products listed on the LSE. The link will take you to the list of Vanguard offerings. To view those offered by other managers, click on the letter choices at the top of the page. For example, to view the iShares offerings, click on \"\"I\"\". In the case of Vanguard, the LSE listed S&P500 ETF is traded under the code VUSA. Similarly, the Vanguard All World ETF trades under the code VWRL. You will need to be patient viewing iShares offerings since there are over ten pages of them, and their description is given by the abbreviation \"\"ISH name\"\". Almost all of these funds are traded in GBP. Some offer both currency hedged and currency unhedged versions. Obviously, with the unhedged version you are taking on additional currency risk, so if you wish to avoid currency risk then choose a currency hedged version. Vanguard does not appear to offer currency hedged products in London while iShares does. Here is a list of iShares currency hedged products. As you can see, the S&P500 currency hedged trades under the code IGUS while the unhedged version trades under the code IUSA. The effects of BREXIT on UK markets and currency are a matter of opinion and difficult to quantify currently. The doom and gloom warnings of some do not appear to have materialised, however the potential for near-term volatility remains so longs as the exit agreement is not formalised. In the long-term, I personally believe that BREXIT will, on balance, be a positive for the UK, but that is just my opinion.\"" }, { "docid": "376126", "title": "", "text": "The vast majority of retail Forex brokers are market makers, rather than ECNs. With that said, the one that fits your description mostly closely is Interactive Brokers, is US-based, and well-respected. They have a good amount of exoitcs available. Many ECNs don't carry these because of the mere fact that they make money on transactions, versus market makers who make money on transactions and even more on your losses. So, if the business model is to make money only on transactions, and they are as rarely traded as exotics are, there's no money to be made." }, { "docid": "35340", "title": "", "text": "Investopedia has a section in their article about currency trading that states: The FX market does not have commissions. Unlike exchange-based markets, FX is a principals-only market. FX firms are dealers, not brokers. This is a critical distinction that all investors must understand. Unlike brokers, dealers assume market risk by serving as a counterparty to the investor's trade. They do not charge commission; instead, they make their money through the bid-ask spread. Principals-only means that the only parties to a transaction are agents who actively bear risk by taking one side of the transaction. There are forex brokers who charge what's called a commission, based on the spread. Investopedia has another article about the commission structure in the forex market that states: There are three forms of commission used by brokers in forex. Some firms offer a fixed spread, others offer a variable spread and still others charge a commission based on a percentage of the spread. So yes, there are forex brokers who charge a commission, but this paragraph is saying mostly the same thing as the first paragraph. The brokers make their money through the bid-ask spread; how they do so varies, and sometimes they call this charge a commission, sometimes they don't. All of the information above differs from the stock markets, however, in which The broker takes the order to an exchange and attempts to execute it as per the customer's instructions. For providing this service, the broker is paid a commission when the customer buys and sells the tradable instrument. The broker isn't taking a side in the trade, so he's not making money on the spread. He's performing the service of taking the order to an exchange an attempting to execute it, and for that, he charges a commission." }, { "docid": "253847", "title": "", "text": "While most all Canadian brokers allow us access to all the US stocks, the reverse is not true. But some US brokers DO allow trading on foreign exchanges. (e.g. Interactive Brokers at which I have an account). You have to look and be prepared to switch brokers. Americans cannot use Canadian brokers (and vice versa). Trading of shares happens where-ever two people get together - hence the pink sheets. These work well for Americans who want to buy-sell foreign stocks using USD without the hassle of FX conversions. You get the same economic exposure as if the actual stock were bought. But the exchanges are barely policed, and liquidity can dry up, and FX moves are not necessarily arbitraged away by 'the market'. You don't have the same safety as ADRs because there is no bank holding any stash of 'actual' stocks to backstop those traded on the pink sheets." }, { "docid": "274835", "title": "", "text": "In terms of pricing the asset, this functions in exactly the same way as a regular sell, so bids will have to be hit to fill the trade. When shorting an equity, currency is not borrowed; the equity is, so the value of per share liability is equal to it's last traded price or the ask if the equity is illiquid. Thus when opening a short position, the asks offer nothing to the process except competition for your order getting filled. Part of managing the trade is the interest rate risk. If the asks are as illiquid as detailed in the question, it may be difficult even to locate the shares for borrowing. As a general rule, only illiquid equities or those in free fall may be temporarily unable for shorting. Interactive Brokers posts their securities financing availabilities and could be used as a proxy guide for your broker." }, { "docid": "480748", "title": "", "text": "\"The list of the public companies is available on the regulatory agencies' sites usually (for example, in the US, you can look at SEC filings). Otherwise, you can check the stock exchange listings, which show all the public companies traded on that exchange. The shareholders, on the other hand, are normally not listed and not published. You'll have to ask the company, and it probably won't tell you (and won't even know them all as many shares are held in the \"\"street name\"\" of the broker).\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "271766", "title": "", "text": "I found the following on a stock to mutual conversion for insurance firms for Ohio. Pulling from that link, Any domestic stock life insurance corporation, incorporated under a general law, may become a mutual life insurance corporation, and to that end may carry out a plan for the acquisition of shares of its capital stock, provided such plan: (A) Has been adopted by a vote of a majority of the directors of such corporation; (B) Has been approved by a vote of stockholders representing a majority of the capital stock then outstanding at a meeting of stockholders called for the purpose; (C) Has been approved by a majority of the policyholders voting at a meeting of policyholders called for the purpose, each of whom is insured in a sum of at least one thousand dollars and whose insurance shall then be in force and shall have been in force for at least one year prior to such meeting. and Any stockholder who has assented to the plan or who has been concluded by the vote of the assenting stockholders, and any stockholder who has objected and made demand in writing for the fair cash value of his shares subsequent to which an agreement has been reached fixing such fair cash value, but who fails to surrender his certificates for cancellation upon payment of the amount to which he is entitled, may be ordered to do so by a decree of the court of common pleas for the county in which the principal office of such corporation is located after notice and hearing in an action instituted by the corporation for that purpose, and such decree may provide that, upon the failure of the stockholder to surrender such certificates for cancellation, the decree shall stand in lieu of such surrender and cancellation. Since they successfully became a mutual insurance company, I would guess that those stocks were acquired back by the company, and are leftover from the conversion. They would not represent an ownership in the company, but might have value to a collector." } ]

[ { "docid": "373697", "title": "", "text": "\"Are there still people who keep significant amounts of money in a bank savings account? You could get ~1% by just choosing the right bank. ING Direct, for example, gives 0.8%, 4 times more than your credit union, with the same FDIC insurance! If you do want to invest in something slightly more long-term, you can get a CD. At the same ING Direct, you can get a 5-year CD with 1% APR. Comes with the same FDIC insurance. Note that I mention ING Direct just because I accidentally had their site open right in front of me, their rates are definitely not the highest right now. If you want to give up the FDIC insurance and take some more risks, you can invest your money in municipal bonds or various kinds of \"\"low risk\"\" mutual funds, which may yield 3-5% a year. If you want to take even more risks - there's a whole stock market available for you, with ETF's, mutual funds and individual stocks. Whether you should - that only you can tell. But you can have a NO-RISK investment yielding 4-5 times more than what you have right now, just saying.\"" }, { "docid": "455168", "title": "", "text": "\"Yes! What you are describing is an \"\"off-exchange\"\" trade and can be done using stock certificates. Here, you will privately negotiate with the seller on a price and delivery details. That is the old-school way to do it. Many companies (about 20% of the S&P 500) will not issue paper certificates and you may run a hefty printing fee up to $500 (source: Wikipedia, above). Other other type of private-party transactions include a deal negotiated between two parties and settled immediately or based on a future event. For example, Warren Buffet created a deal with Goldman Sachs where Warren would have the choice to purchase GS shares in the future at a certain price. This was to be settled with actual shares (rather than cash-settled). Ignoring that he later canceled this agreement, if it were to go through the transaction would still have been handled by a broker transferring the shares. You can purchase directly from a company using a direct stock purchase plan (SPP). Just pick up the phone, ask for their investor relations and then ask if they offer this option. If not, they will be glad for your interest and look into setting it up for you.\"" }, { "docid": "224530", "title": "", "text": "\"Logic fail. The qty of shares is irrelevant. What matters is the value, which is, of course, quite high -- and, what's more, the P/E ratio, which is extremely favorable. Having worked in operations at Apple for 7 years, I can tell you that the company is very lean and efficient. 25% matching is extremely generous. 25% contribution rates are standard in corporate jobs (contribution rates are what maximum percentage of your pre-tax income you can opt to set aside into a 401K; this is different than matching). It absolutely is not bare bones to be given 25% matching. Although I no longer work at Apple, I still have my 401K, and the administration of it is good, as is the choice of funds. Back to the matching... It's free money. For every $1 you put in your 401K (pretax, btw), Apple puts in a quarter. Having worked in other corporations over my career, I can tell you that this level of matching is pretty much as good as it gets. For a good part of the time I worked there I made around $30K (not in Retail, but in Operations, as mentioned before). I maxed out the Employee Stock Purchase Program contribution and mostly maxed out my 401K contribution. Now, 12 years later, my stock appreciated beyond my wildest expectations. I have made well over six figures on it over the years. If I never sold any, it would be worth over $500,000 by now. All that from 10% contributions on a salary that ranged from about $26K when I started out to about $46K when I left 7 years later. My 401K holdings are worth about $60K, I think, invested extremely conservatively. I have had it in money market funds since right before the 2008/2009 crash, which I anticipated. So the investment benefits at Apple served me extremely well. My stock appreciation paid for my car, and it will soon cover the down payment on a house. I was essentially able to \"\"retire\"\" to be a stay-at-home-mom when my son was born, thanks to the safety net I have from my Apple stock. Regarding health benefits... I think you meant to say copays, not deductibles. When I was there, there were no copays. I forgot what the deductibles were, but for most routine visits, you wouldn't need to pay out of pocket. Annual physicals are included in the health plan, up to $250. The health plan works with various local providers to ensure that the $250 allotment will cover all expenses needed for an annual physical. This physical is separate and in addition to a women's health annual exam (pap smear/pelvic exam/etc) that is also included without copay. I'm pretty sure annual mammograms are covered. All prenatal visits are covered with zero copay. All child well checks, including immunizations, covered with zero copay. Two dental checks a year. Dental Xrays at regular intervals included. Annual vision exams and, I think $300 annually towards glasses or contacts included, IIRC. Time off was pretty standard and accrued by the hour worked, which was nice. There was no \"\"you have to be with the company for X length of time\"\" before time off benefits began to accrue, or before any benefits kicked in, for that matter. By about Year 5, I had easily racked up enough vacation days to take 3 weeks off at a time. The longer you have been with the company, the faster your time off accrues. And each summer they'd offer a cash-out program, where you could double up on time off, where if you took off a week, you could opt to deplete your accrued vacation time by two weeks and get double pay for it. A lot of people liked this option. The points for absenteeism thing seemed a bit silly -- and seemed to only have been implemented in one store and then only for a brief time. From what I gathered in the article, it was an experiment that failed miserably. The other corporation I have spent a significant amount of time working at is Whole Foods Market, in their corporate office. While both Apple and Whole Foods always are selected as two of the top companies to work for by Forbes in their annual report, as far as benefits went, Apple's were far superior in most aspects. With respect to company culture, I personally found Whole Foods to be better, but that was sort of a personal preference. Both were dream jobs, and I consider myself very fortunate to have had the opportunity to work for two outstanding companies that both treated me very well. Oh- and incidentally, Ron Johnson, who was VP of Retail at Apple from the inception of the stores until like a year ago, now is CEO of JC Penny, and, I suspect, is fully behind JCP's ad campaigns which include images of families with same-sex parents. JCP has stepped deliberately and full-on into what is, unfortunately, still a controversial topic and has taken a firm stand in support of all types of loving families. I have to wonder if part of this might have been inspired by the fact that Apple's new CEO, Tim Cook, is gay. Ron Johnson would have worked closely alongside Cook during his tenure. I met Ron once and found him to be a great guy, and I worked with the Retail operations folks from the time the stores launched. They were a great team that worked hard and were very sincere and dedicated. You could see his leadership reflecting in each member of the team.\"" }, { "docid": "245616", "title": "", "text": "\"First off, the answer to your question is something EVERYONE would like to know. There are fund managers at Fidelity who will a pay $100 million fee to someone who can tell them a \"\"safe\"\" way to earn interest. The first thing to decide, is do you want to save money, or invest money. If you just want to save your money, you can keep it in cash, certificates of deposit or gold. Each has its advantages and disadvantages. For example, gold tends to hold its value over time and will always have value. Even if Russia invades Switzerland and the Swiss Franc becomes worthless, your gold will still be useful and spendable. As Alan Greenspan famously wrote long ago, \"\"Gold is always accepted.\"\" If you want to invest money and make it grow, yet still have the money \"\"fluent\"\" which I assume means liquid, your main option is a major equity, since those can be readily bought and sold. I know in your question you are reluctant to put your money at the \"\"mercy\"\" of one stock, but the criteria you have listed match up with an equity investment, so if you want to meet your goals, you are going to have to come to terms with your fears and buy a stock. Find a good blue chip stock that is in an industry with positive prospects. Stay away from stuff that is sexy or hyped. Focus on just one stock--that way you can research it to death. The better you understand what you are buying, the greater the chance of success. Zurich Financial Services is a very solid company right now in a nice, boring, highly profitable business. Might fit your needs perfectly. They were founded in 1872, one of the safest equities you will find. Nestle is another option. Roche is another. If you want something a little more risky consider Georg Fischer. Anyway, what I can tell you, is that your goals match up with a blue chip equity as the logical type of investment. Note on Diversification Many financial advisors will advise you to \"\"diversify\"\", for example, by investing in many stocks instead of just one, or even by buying funds that are invested in hundreds of stocks, or indexes that are invested in the whole market. I disagree with this philosophy. Would you go into a casino and divide your money, putting a small portion on each game? No, it is a bad idea because most of the games have poor returns. Yet, that is exactly what you do when you diversify. It is a false sense of safety. The proper thing to do is exactly what you would do if forced to bet in casino: find the game with the best return, get as good as you can at that game, and play just that one game. That is the proper and smart thing to do.\"" }, { "docid": "112374", "title": "", "text": "\"You're circling around the answer... The only real difference between a loddar and a privately-issued promissory note is that the loddar is issued by a recognized third party with better credit/credibility (the whole merchant/priest/farmer cartel-thing). Private entities absolutely can and do issue their own promises to pay, and accept them, and in turn rely on those promises to make other promises. It's what you do when you charge something to a credit-card on the basis of your employer's promise to pay. You charge new tires, the tire store promises to pay its employees based on your CC company's promise to pay the tire-store, which is based on your promise to pay the credit-card company, which is based on your employer's promise to pay you, which is based on your employer's contracts with its customers, and so on... In fact, often as not, the whole chain *never actually gets reconciled with printed cash.* The central bank never has to print or even know about these transactions. It's just checks and electronic transfers: promises all the way down, maybe with occasional cash withdrawals for popcorn at the movies or to tip the stripper or something... That doesn't mean it's not \"\"real money\"\", it absolutely is: those promises are buying groceries and tires and making mortgage-payments and paying dentist bills and getting people to dig up stuff out of mines that will be fashioned into iPads, and all kinds of stuff. Where this hurts most people in the brain is that they kind of accept dollar bills as axiomatically and intrinsically valuable. So trying to explain in reverse how they are the same as promissory notes or credit-certificates is like trying to convince them that a plane ticket is the same as an airplane (which is obviously not true). That's why I started with this imaginary world without money. If you let go of any preconceptions, and stop trying to think through the analogies and don't read it trying to predictively look for the outcome conclusions, if you just read it and follow the story through, it is obvious that the *only* intrinsic difference (in that imaginary world) between apple-certificates, loddars, and privately-issued IOUs is the *credibility of the issuer*. Trying to understand this stuff via analogy will make your head spin: Taking it all the way back to the thread-topic and the question at the top of the page, what makes it so difficult is the tendency and mental impulse to analogize money as a \"\"thing\"\" that \"\"is\"\" somewhere, and therefore has to \"\"go\"\" somewhere. But that's an intrinsically and substantially imperfect analogy, which is what makes it hard to explain to a five-year-old. And you can't make the reality fit that analogy and stay sane. Even if you refuse to accept all this maddening abstraction and insist on only doing transactions with physical cash, or gold pieces, *the value of those markers is still 100% contingent on everyone accepting that everyone else will continue to believe that everyone else will continue to accept that currency...* Money is essentially a promise that other people will keep. Instead of giving you food, your employer gives you a \"\"universal gift certificate\"\" that you can redeem anywhere, and everyone else will accept it, because they can in turn redeem it anywhere else. The only difference between using a bank-draft or printed dollar bill, versus writing a promise to make good yourself, is the credibility of the issuer. That's a really difficult premise for most people to accept, because it's invisible and abstract, and seems to conflict with tangible interactions you've been doing all your life. So we have this sort of tendency to try and force the reality to fit preconceived conceptual analogies, like someone who keeps rejecting explanations of how airplanes can fly because \"\"that still doesn't explain how metal can be lighter than air\"\"... it's demanding that the reality must fit a hypothesis that doesn't apply. Hope that helps.\"" }, { "docid": "423754", "title": "", "text": "\"I don't think you have your head in the right space - you seem to be thinking of these lifecycle funds like they're an annuity or a pension, but they're not. They're an investment. Specifically, they're a mutual fund that will invest in a collection of other mutual funds, which in turn invest in stock and bonds. Stocks go up, and stocks go down. Bonds go up, and bonds go down. How much you'll have in this fund next year is unknowable, much less 32 years from now. What you can know, is that saving regularly over the next 32 years and investing it in a reasonable, and diversified way in a tax sheltered account like that Roth will mean you have a nice chunk of change sitting there when you retire. The lifecycle funds exist to help you with that \"\"reasonable\"\" and \"\"diversified\"\" bit.They're meant to be one stop shopping for a retirement portfolio. They put your money into a diversified portfolio, then \"\"age\"\" the portfolio allocations over time to make it go from a high risk, (potentially) high reward allocation now to a lower risk, lower reward portfolio as you approach retirement. The idea is is that you want to shoot for making lots of money now, but when you're older, you want to focus more on keeping the money you have. Incidentally, kudos for getting into seriously saving for retirement when you're young. One of the biggest positive effects you can have on how much you retire with is simply time. The more time your money can sit there, the better. At 26, if you're putting away 10 percent into a Roth, you're doing just fine. If that 5k is more than 10 percent, you'll do better than fine. (That's a rule of thumb, but it's based on a lot of things I've read where people have gamed out various scenarios, as well as my own, cruder calculations I've done in the past)\"" }, { "docid": "193314", "title": "", "text": "\"- So some time goes by and people start catching onto this system of credit-worthiness, and farmers and fishermen and so on start to realize that they can get better value for their IOUs by demonstrating credibility. People with shakier reputations or dubious prospects may not be able to \"\"issue money\"\", or might only be able to do so at very high \"\"interest\"\". E.g., a new farmer with no track-record might have to promise me twice as many potatoes in exchange for a deer haunch, due to the risk that I might never see any potatoes at all. - This obviously gets very messy fast, as different apple- and potato-certificates have different values depending on whether they were issued by Bob or Jane, and everyone has to keep track of and evaluate whose future apples are worth what. - Some enterprising person, maybe the merchant who runs the trading-post, comes up with the idea to just issue one note for all the farms in town. He calls a meeting with all the farmers, and proposes to have the town priest keep a book of certificates and so on, and the farmers will get notes just like everyone else in exchange for the crops they contribute to the pool, and the merchant will keep a cut of the crops with which to hire some accountants and farm-surveyors to estimate the total crop yields across town and so on. - Everyone agrees (or at least, enough farmers agree to kind of force the other ones to get on-board if they want to participate meaningfully in the town economy), and we now have something like a central bank issuing something like **fiat currency**: that is, currency whose value is \"\"decided\"\" by some central authority, as opposed to the kind of straight-up exchange certificates that can be traded for an actual apple from the issuer, for example. - Now we have something that looks a lot like a modern monetary system. The town can set up audit committees or whatever, but the idea is that there is some central authority basically tasked with issuing money, and regulating the supply of that money according to the estimated size of ongoing and future economic activity (future crop yields). - If they issue too much money, we get inflation, where more apple-certificates are issued than apples grown, and each apple-note ends up being worth only three-quarters of an apple come harvest-time. If they issue too little currency, economic activity is needlessly restricted: the farmers are not able to hire enough workers to maximize crop yields and so on, the hunter starts hunting less because his deer meat is going bad since nobody has money to buy it, and so on. **At this point, you may be asking, \"\"Why the hell go through all this complexity just to trade apples for deer and shoes? Isn't this more trouble than it's worth?\"\"** The answer is because this is a *vastly* more efficient system than pure barter. I, as a hunter, no longer need to trade a physical deer haunch for a bushel of apples to carry over to the shoemaker in order to get shoes. You, as an apple-farmer, can hire workers *before* the crop is harvested, and therefore can grow more, and your workers can eat year-round instead of just getting a huge pile of apples at harvest-time to try and trade for for whatever they will need for the rest of the year. So back to money... The thing to remember is that all throughout, from the initial trade to this central-banking system, *all of this money is debt*. It is IOUs, except instead of being an IOU that says \"\"Kancho_Ninja will give one bushel of apples to the bearer of this bond in October\"\", it says **\"\"Anyone in town will give you anything worth one bushel of apples in trade.\"\"** The money is not an actual *thing* that you can eat or wear or build a house with, it's an IOU that is redeemable anywhere, for anything, from anyone. It is a promise to pay equivalent value at some time in the future, except the holder of the money can call on anybody at all to fulfill that promise-- they don't have to go back to the original promiser. **This is where it starts getting interesting, and where we can start to answer your question...** (for the sake of simplicity, let's stop calling these notes \"\"apple certificates\"\", and pretend that the village has decided to call them \"\"Loddars\"\"). - So now you're still growing apples, but instead of trading them for deer-haunches and shoes, you trade them for Loddars. So far, so good. - Once again, you want some meat, except harvest time hasn't come yet so you don't have any Loddars to buy meat with. You call me up (cellphones have been invented in this newly-efficient economy), \"\"Hey otherwiseyep, any chance you could kill me a deer and I'll give you ten Loddars for it at harvest-time?\"\" - I say, \"\"Jeez, I'd love to, but I really need all the cash I can get for every deer right now: my kid is out-growing shoes like crazy. Tell you what: if you can write me a promise to pay *twelve* Loddars in October, I can give that to the shoe-maker.\"\" You groan about the \"\"interest rate\"\" but agree. Did a lightbulb just go off? **You and I have once again *created Money*.** Twelve loddars now exist in the town economy that *have not been printed by the central bank.* Counting all the money trading hands in the village, there are now (a) all the loddars that have ever been printed, *plus* (b) *twelve more* that you have promised to produce. This is important to understand: I just spent money on shoes, which you spent on deer meat, that *has never been printed*. It's obviously not any of the banknotes that have already been issued, but it's definitely real money, because I traded it for new shoes, and you traded it for a dead deer. - Once you and I and others start to catch on that this is possible, that we can spend money that we don't have and that hasn't even been printed yet, it is entirely possible for a situation to arise where the total amount of money changing hand in the village vastly exceeds the number of loddars that have actually been printed. And this can happen without fraud or inflation or anything like that, and can be perfectly legitimate. - Now, what happens if another wildfire hits your orchard? **Those twelve loddars are destroyed,** they are gone, the shoe-maker is twelve loddars poorer, without spending it and without anyone else getting twelve loddars richer. The money that bought your deer and my shoes has simply vanished from the economy, as though it never existed, despite the fact that it bought stuff with genuine economic utility and value.\"" }, { "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": "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": "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": "165246", "title": "", "text": "\"There is no fundamental, good reason, I think; \"\"that's just how it's done\"\" (which is what all the other answers seem to be saying, w/o coming out and admitting it). Just guessing, but I'll bet most of the reason is historical: Before up-to-the-moment quotes were readily available, that was a bit tedious to calculate/update the fund's value, so enacted-laws let it be done just once per day. (@NL7 quotes the security act of 1940, which certainly has been updated, but also still might contain the results of crufty rationales, like this.) There are genuinely different issues between funds and stocks, though: One share of a fund is fundamentally different from one share of stock: There is a finite supply of Company-X-stock, and people are trading that piece of ownership around, and barter to find an mutually-agreeable-price. But when you buy into a mutual-fund, the mutual-fund \"\"suddenly has more shares\"\" -- it takes your money and uses it to buy shares of the underlying stocks (in a ratio equal to its current holdings). As a consequence: the mutual fund's price isn't determined by two people bartering and agreeing on a price (like stock); there is exactly one sane way to price a mutual fund, and that's the weighted total of its underlying stock. If you wanted to sell your ownership-of-Mutual-Fund-Z to a friend at 2:34pm, there wouldn't be any bartering, you'd just calculate the value based on the stated-value of the underlying stock at that exact moment. So: there's no inherent reason you can't instantaneously price a mutual fund. BUT people don't really buy/sell funds to each other -- they go to the fund-manager and essentially make a deposit-or-withdraw. The fund-manager is only required by law to do it once a day (and perhaps even forbidden from doing it more often?), so that's all they do. [Disclaimer: I know very little about markets and finance. But I recognize answers that are 'just because'.]\"" }, { "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": "301552", "title": "", "text": "Congratulations! You own a (very small) slice of Apple. As a stockholder, you have a vote on important decisions that the company makes. Each year Apple has a stockholder meeting in Cupertino that you are invited to. If you are unable to attend and vote, you can vote by proxy, which simply means that you register your vote before the meeting. You just missed this year's meeting, which was held on February 26, 2016. They elected people to the board of directors, chose an accounting firm, and voted on some other proposals. Votes are based on the number of shares you own; since you only own one share, your vote is very small compared to some of the other stockholders. Besides voting, you are entitled to receive profit from the company, if the company chooses to pay this out in the form of dividends. Apple's dividend for the last several quarters has been $0.52 per share, which means that you will likely receive 4 small checks from Apple each year. The value of the share of stock that you have changes daily. Today, it is worth about $100. You can sell this stock whenever you like; however, since you have a paper certificate, in order to sell this stock on the stock market, you would need to give your certificate to a stock broker before they can sell it for you. The broker will charge a fee to sell it for you. Apple has a website for stockholders at investor.apple.com with some more information about owning Apple stock. One of the things you'll find here is information on how to update your contact information, which you will want to do if you move, so that Apple can continue to send you your proxy materials and dividend checks." }, { "docid": "131224", "title": "", "text": "\"A stock insurance company is structured like a “normal” company. It has shareholders (that are the company's investors), who elect a board of directors, who select the senior executive(s), who manage the people who run the actual company. The directors (and thus the executives and employees) have a legal responsibility to manage the company in a way which is beneficial for the shareholders, since the shareholders are the ultimate owner of the company. A mutual insurance company is similar, except that the people holding policies are also the shareholders. That is, the policyholders are the ultimate owners of the company, and there generally aren't separate shareholders who are just “investing” in the company. These policyholder-shareholders elect the board of directors, who select the senior executive(s), who manage the people who run the actual company. In practice, it probably doesn't really make a whole lot of difference, since even if you're just a \"\"customer\"\" and not an \"\"owner\"\" of the company, the company is still going to want to attract customers and act in a reasonable way toward them. Also, insurance companies are generally pretty heavily regulated in terms of what they can do, because governments really like them to remain solvent. It may be comforting to know that in a mutual insurance company the higher-ups are explicitly supposed to be working in your best interest, though, rather than in the interest of some random investors. Some might object that being a shareholder may not give you a whole lot more rights than you had before. See, for example, this article from the Boston Globe, “At mutual insurance firms, big money for insiders but no say for ‘owners’ — policyholders”: It has grown into something else entirely: an opaque, poorly understood, and often immensely profitable world in which some executives and insiders operate with minimal scrutiny and, no coincidence, often reap maximum personal rewards. Policyholders, despite their status as owners, have no meaningful oversight of how mutual companies spend their money — whether to lower rates, pay dividends, or fund executive salaries and perks — and few avenues to challenge such decisions. Another reason that one might not like the conversion is the specific details of how the current investor-shareholders are being paid back for their investment in the process of the conversion to mutual ownership, and what that might do to the funds on hand that are supposed to be there to keep the firm solvent for the policyholders. From another Boston Globe article on the conversion of SBLI to a mutual company, “Insurer SBLI wants to get banks out of its business,” professor Robert Wright is cautiously optimistic but wants to ensure the prior shareholders aren't overpaid: Robert Wright, a professor in South Dakota who has studied insurance companies and owns an SBLI policy, said he would prefer the insurer to be a mutual company that doesn’t have to worry about the short-term needs of shareholders. But he wants to ensure that SBLI doesn’t overpay the banks for their shares. “It’s fine, as long as it’s a fair price,” he said. That article also gives SBLI's president's statement as to why they think it's a good thing for policyholders: If the banks remained shareholders, they would be likely to demand a greater share of the profits and eat into the dividends the insurance company currently pays to the 536,000 policyholders, about half of whom live in Massachusetts, said Jim Morgan, president of Woburn-based SBLI. “We’re trying to protect the policyholders from having the dividends diluted,” Morgan said. I'm not sure there's an obvious pros/cons list for either way, but I'd think that I'd prefer the mutual approach, just on the principle that the policyholders “ought” to be the owners, because the directors (and thus the executives and employees) are then legally required to manage the company in the best interest of the policyholders. I did cast a Yes vote in my proxy on whether SBLI ought to become a mutual company (I'm a SBLI term-life policyholder.) But policy terms aren't changing, and it'd be hard to tell for sure how it'd impact any dividends (I assume the whole-life policies must be the ones to pay dividends) or company solvency either way, since it's not like we'll get to run a scientific experiment trying it out both ways. I doubt you'd have a lot of regrets either way, whether it becomes a mutual company and you wish it hadn't or it doesn't become one and you wish it had.\"" }, { "docid": "271243", "title": "", "text": "\"Have the stock certificate in with a letter from the previous owner of the company from what I can tell in the letter these stocks were distributed from the owner himself stating \"\"after evaluation we have determined that your investment in this company is worth 10,000 shares at $1.00 a piece\"\" as well as I believe these shares were also acquired when the company was going through name changes or their company was bought\"" }, { "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": "404800", "title": "", "text": "First, check out some of the answers on this question: Oversimplify it for me: the correct order of investing When you have determined that you are ready to invest for retirement, there are two things you need to consider: the investment and the account. These are separate items. The investment is what makes your money grow. The type of account provides tax advantages (and restrictions). Generally, these can be considered separately; for the most part, you can do any type of investment in any account. Briefly, here is an overview of some of the main options: In your situation, the Roth IRA is what I would recommend. This grows tax free, and if you need the funds for some reason, you can get out what you put in without penalty. You can invest up to $5500 in your Roth IRA each year. In addition to the above reasons, which are true for anybody, a Roth IRA would be especially beneficial for you for three reasons: For someone that is closer in age to retirement and in a higher tax bracket now, a Roth IRA is less attractive than it is for you. Inside your Roth IRA, there are lots of choices. 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. There are lots of different types of stock mutual funds with different strategies and expenses associated with them. Managed funds actively buy and sell different stocks inside them, but have high expenses to pay the managers. Index funds buy and hold a list of stocks, and have very low expenses. The conventional wisdom is that, in general, index funds perform better than managed funds when you take the expenses into account. I hope this overview and these recommendations were helpful. If you have any specific questions about any of these types of accounts or investments, feel free to ask another question." }, { "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 $20 commission you're already down 1%. If you're holding a mutual fund or ETF, look at the expense ratio. The annualized real return on the stock market is about 4%. (A real return is after adjusting for inflation.) If your fee is 1%, that's about a quarter of your earnings, which is huge. And while it's easy for a mutual fund to outperform the market by 1% from time to time, it's really really hard to do it consistently. Once you're looking at individual companies, you should do a lot of obnoxious boring stupid research and don't just buy the stock on the strength of its brand name. You'll be interested in a couple of metrics. The main one is probably the P/E ratio (price/earnings). If you take the inverse of this, you'll get the rate at which your investment is making you money (e.g. a P/E of 20 is 5%, a P/E of 10 is 10%). All else being equal, a lower P/E is a good thing: it means that you're buying the company's income really cheap. However, all else is seldom equal: if a stock is going for really cheap, it's usually because investors don't think that it's got much of a future. Earnings are not always consistent. There are a lot of other measures, like beta (correlation to the market overall: riskier volatile stocks have higher numbers), gross margins, price to unleveraged free cash flow, and stuff like that. Again, do the boring research, otherwise you're just playing games with your money." }, { "docid": "528095", "title": "", "text": "For point two.. The norm for buying stock is to just register online with a major broker: Fidelity, Schwab,TD Ameritrade...etc, send them money to fund your purchase, make the stock purchase in your account, and then have a little faith. You could probably get them to physically transfer the stock certificates from them to you, but it is not the norm at all. I would plan on a fee being involved also. The 10$ is for one trade... regardless of if you buy one share or many. So you wouldn't buy 1 share of a five dollar stock as your cost would be absurd. You might buy a hundred shares." } ]

[ { "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": "180644", "title": "", "text": "Your question is a bit odd in that you are mixing long-term fundamental analysis signals which are generally meant to work on longer time frames with medium term trading where these fundamental signals are mostly irrelevant. Generally you would buy-and-hold on a fundamental signal and ride the short-term fluctuations if you believe you have done good analysis. If you would like to trade on the 2-6 month time scale you would need a signal that works on that sort of time scale. Some people believe that technical analysis can give you those kind of signals, but there are many, many, many different technical signals and how you would trade using them is highly dependent on which one you believe works. Some people do mix fundamental and technical signals, but that can be very complicated. Learning a good amount about technical analysis could get you started. I will note, though, that studies of non-professionals continuously show that the more frequently people trade the more on they underperform on average in the long term when compared with people that buy-and-hold. An aside on technical analysis: michael's comment is generally correct though not well explained. Say Bob found a technical signal that works and he believes that a stock that costs $10 dollars should be $11. He buys it and makes money two months later when the rest of the market figures out the right price is $11 and he sells at that price. This works a bunch of times and he now publishes how the signal works on Stack Exchange to show everyone how awesome he is. Next time, Bob's signal finds a different stock at $10 that should be $11, but Anna just wrote a computer program that checks that signal Bob published faster than he ever could. The computer program buys as much as it can in milliseconds until the price is $11. Bob goes to buy, but now it is too late the price is already $11 and he can't make any money. Eventually, people learn to anticipate/adjust for this signal and even Anna's algorithms don't even work anymore and the hunt for new signals starts again." }, { "docid": "280337", "title": "", "text": "\"There isn't a single rate that works in both directions. There are two rates, one for each direction. So if $1 = 64.23 INR, you may find that 100 INR = $1.55. In fact, it's even worse than that. The \"\"rates\"\" are just the average values at which transactions occur. What happens in the real world is that someone (presumably your bank in this instance) offers to sell 100 INR for some amount, perhaps $1.56. Other traders may either accept this price or refuse to trade. If they refuse to trade, the bank may accept one of their offers, perhaps $1.55. Anyway, the answer to your question is that whomever does the actual conversion keeps the \"\"difference\"\". Of course, they may then lose that money if the value falls before they sell. More confusingly, either your bank or your friend's bank could do the conversion itself. Either or both could hold balances in various currencies so that they don't have to rely on the vagaries of the exchange market. This is called a money market account, and banks let their customers invest in them. It is a bit more likely to be your bank that gets the money than your friend's bank. Your friend's bank doesn't actually need to know that your account is in USD. They just transfer the amount in INR. It's your bank that has to convert that into USD to deposit in your account.\"" }, { "docid": "256035", "title": "", "text": "Investors who are themselves Canadian and already hold Canadian dollars (CAD) would be more likely to purchase the TSX-listed shares that are quoted in CAD, thus avoiding the currency exchange fees that would be required to buy USD-quoted shares listed on the NYSE. Assuming Shopify is only offering a single class of shares to the public in the IPO (and Shopify's form F-1 only mentions Class A subordinate voting shares as being offered) then the shares that will trade on the TSX and NYSE will be the same class, i.e. identical. Consequently, the primary difference will be the currency in which they are quoted and trade. This adds another dimension to possible arbitrage, where not only the bare price could deviate between exchanges, but also due to currency fluctuation. An additional implication for a company to maintain such a dual listing is that they'll need to adhere to the requirements of both the TSX and NYSE. While this may have a hard cost in terms of additional filing requirements etc., in theory they will benefit from the additional liquidity provided by having the multiple listings. Canadians, in particular, are more likely to invest in a Canadian company when it has a TSX listing quoted in CAD. Also, for a company listed on both the TSX and NYSE, I would expect the TSX listing would be more likely to yield inclusion in a significant market index—say, one based on market capitalization, and thus benefit the company by having its shares purchased by index ETFs and index mutual funds that track the index. I'll also remark that this dual U.S./Canadian exchange listing is not uncommon when it comes to Canadian companies that have significant business outside of Canada." }, { "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": "299284", "title": "", "text": "The advice I have is short and sweet. Be an investor, not a speculator. Adopt the philosophy of Warren Buffet which is the 'buy and hold' philosophy. Avoid individual stocks and buy mutual funds or ETFs. Pick something that pays dividends and reinvest those dividends. Don't become a speculator, meaning avoid the 'buy low, sell high' philosophy. EDIT:For some reason I cannot add a comment, so I am putting my response here. @jad The 'buy low, sell high' approach makes money for the stock broker, not necessarily you. As we learn in the movie Trading Places, each buy or sell creates a commission for the broker. It is those commission expenses that eat away at your nestegg. Just don't sell. If a security is trading at $10 a share and pays $0.25 a share each quarter then you are getting 10% ROI if you buy that security (and if it continues to pay $0.25 a share each quarter). If the price goes up then the ROI for new buyers will go down, but your ROI will still be the same. You will continue to get 10% for as long as you hold that security. A mutual fund buys the individual stocks for you. The value of the fund is only calculated at the end of the day. An ETF is like a mutual fund but the value of the ETF is calculated moment by moment." }, { "docid": "112714", "title": "", "text": "\"Market makers (shortened MM) in an exchange are generally required to list both a bid and ask price to allow both buyers and sellers to trade and keep the market moving. However, a more general idea of a MM may includes companies off an exchange (say large banks acting as broker/dealers in an over-the-counter market) are not required to give a simultaneous bid/ask, but often will on request. So, it might depend on where you are getting this data but likely the bid/ask was quoted simultaneously. An exchange, like the NASDAQ for instance, may have multiple MMs for a given market. The \"\"market\"\" spread will be from the highest bid to the lowest ask over all the MMs. The highest bid and lowest ask may come from different MMs and any particular MM often will have a larger spread. The size of the spread gives a rough idea of how much a MM is trying to make off of a \"\"round trip\"\" trade (buying than immediately selling to someone else or selling than immediately buying from someone else). Of course, immediate round-trip trades are not always possible and there are many other complications. However, half the spread is a rough indicator of how much they hope to make off of a single trade.\"" }, { "docid": "525337", "title": "", "text": "Purchases and sales from the same trade date will both settle on the same settlement date. They don't have to pay for their purchases until later either. Because HFT typically make many offsetting trades -- buying, selling, buying, selling, buying, selling, etc -- when the purchases and sales settle, the amount they pay for their purchases will roughly cancel with the amount they receive for their sales (the difference being their profit or loss). Margin accounts and just having extra cash around can increase their ability to have trades that do not perfectly offset. In practice, the HFT's broker will take a smaller amount of cash (e.g. $1 million) as a deposit of capital, and will then allow the HFT to trade a larger amount of stock value long or short (e.g. $10 million, for 10:1 leverage). That $1 million needs to be enough to cover the net profit/loss when the trades settle, and the broker will monitor this to ensure that deposit will be enough." }, { "docid": "171819", "title": "", "text": "\"There some specific circumstances when you would have a long-term gain. Option 1: If you meet all of these conditions: Then you've got a long-term gain on the stock. The premium on the option gets rolled into the capital gain on the stock and is not taxed separately. From the IRS: 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. https://www.irs.gov/publications/p550/ch04.html#en_US_2015_publink100010630 Option 2: If you didn't hold the underlying and the exercise of the call that you wrote resulted in a short position, you might also be able to get to a long-term gain by buying the underlying while keeping your short position open and then \"\"crossing\"\" them to close both positions after one year. (In other words, don't \"\"buy to cover\"\" just \"\"buy\"\" so that your account shows both a long and a short position in the same security. Your broker probably allows this, but if not you, could buy in a different account than the one with the short position.) That would get you to this rule: As a general rule, you determine whether you have short-term or long-term capital gain or loss on a short sale by the amount of time you actually hold the property eventually delivered to the lender to close the short sale. https://www.irs.gov/publications/p550/ch04.html#en_US_2015_publink100010586 Option 1 is probably reasonably common. Option 2, I would guess, is uncommon and likely not worthwhile. I do not think that the wash sale rules can help string along options from expiration to expiration though. Option 1 has some elements of what you wrote in italics (I find that paragraph a bit confusing), but the wash sale does not help you out.\"" }, { "docid": "116865", "title": "", "text": "\"They pretty much already have what you are looking for. They are called Unit Investment Trusts. The key behind these is (a) the trust starts out with a fixed pool of securities. It is completely unmanaged and there is no buying or selling of the securities, (b) they terminate after a fixed period of time, at which time all assets are distributed among the owners. According to Investment Company Institute, \"\"securities in a UIT are professionally selected to meet a stated investment objective, such as growth, income, or capital appreciation.\"\" UITs sell a fixed number of units at one-time public offering. Securities in a UIT do not trade actively, rather, UITs use a strategy known as buy-and-hold. The UIT purchases a certain amount of securities and holds them until its termination date. Holdings rarely change throughout the life of the trust so unit holders know exactly what they're investing in, and the trust lists all securities in its prospectus. Unit trusts normally sell redeemable units - this obligates the trust to re-purchase investor's units at their net asset value at the investors request.\"" }, { "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": "395783", "title": "", "text": "This was the day traders dilemma. You can, on paper, make money doing such trades. But because you do not hold the security for at least a year, the earnings are subject to short term capital gains tax unless these trades are done inside a sheltered account like a traditional IRA. There are other considerations as well: wash sale rules and number of days to settle. In short, the glory days of rags to riches by day trading are long gone, if they were ever here in the first place. Edit: the site will not allow me to add a comment, so I am putting my response here: Possibly, yes. One big 'gotcha' is that your broker reports the proceeds from your sales, but does not report your outflows from your buys. Then there is the risk you take by the broker refusing to sell the security until the transaction settles. Not to mention wash sale rules. You are trying to win at the 'buy low, sell high' game. But you have a 25% chance, at best, of winning at that game. Can you pick the low? Maybe, but you have a 50% chance of being right. Then you have to pick the high. And again you have a 50% chance of doing that. 50% times 50% is 25%. Warren Buffet did not get rich that way. Buffet buys and holds. Don't be a speculator, be a 'buy and hold' investor. Buy securities, inside a sheltered account like a traditional IRA, that pay dividends then reinvest those dividends into the security you bought. Scottrade has a Flexible Reinvestment Program that lets you do this with no commission fees." }, { "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": "491897", "title": "", "text": "\"You can greatly reduce the risk if you can line up a buyer prior to purchasing the car. That kind of thing is common in business, one example is drop shipping. Also there are sales companies that specialize in these kinds of things bringing manufacturers of goods together with customers. The sales companies never take delivery of the product, just a commission on the sales. From this the manufacturers are served as they have gained a customer for their goods. The buying company is served as they can make a \"\"better\"\" end product. The two parties may have not been brought together had it not been for the sales company so on some level both are happy to pay for the service. Can you find market inequalities and profit from them? Sure. I missed a great opportunity recently. I purchased a name brand shirt from a discount store for $20. Those shirts typically sell on ebay for $80. I should have cleaned out that store's inventory, and I bet someone else did as by the time I went back they were gone. That kind of thing was almost risk-less because if the shirts did not sell, I could simply return them for the full purchase price. That and I can afford to buy a few hundred dollars worth of shirts. Can you afford to float 45K CDN? What if it takes a year to sell the car? What if the economy goes sour and you are left \"\"holding the bag\"\"? Why are not car dealers doing exactly what you propose? Here in the US this type of thing is called \"\"horse trading\"\" and is very common. I've both lost and made money on these kind of deals. I would never put a significant amount of my net worth at risk.\"" }, { "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": "164008", "title": "", "text": "The everyday investor buys at the ask and sells at the bid but the market maker does the opposite This is misleading; it has nothing to do with being either an investor or a market maker. It is dependent on the type of order that is submitted. When a market trades at the ask, this means that a buy market order has interacted with a sell limit order at the limit price. When a market trades at the bid, this means that a sell market order has interacted with a buy limit order at the limit price. An ordinary investor can do exactly the same as a market maker and submit limit orders. Furthermore, they can sit on both sides of the bid and ask exactly as a market maker does. In the days before high frequency trading this was quite common (an example being Daytek, whose traders were notorious for stepping in front of the designated market maker's bid/ask on the Island ECN). An order executes ONLY when both bid and ask meet. (bid = ask) This is completely incorrect. A transaction occurs when an active (marketable) order is matched with a passive (limit book) order. If the passive order is a sell limit then the trade has occurred at the ask, and if it is a buy limit the trade has occurred at the bid. The active orders are not bids and asks. The only exception to this would be if the bid and ask have become crossed. When a seller steps in, he does so with an ask that's lower than the stock's current ask Almost correct; he does so with an order that's lower than the stock's current ask. If it's a marketable order it will fill the front queued best bid, and if it's a limit order his becomes the new ask price. A trade does not need to occur at this price for it to become the ask. This is wrong, market makers are the opposite party to you so the prices are the other way around for them. This is wrong. There is no distinction between the market maker and yourself or any other member of the public (beside the fact that designated market makers on some exchanges are obliged to post both a bid and ask at all times). You can open an account with any broker and do exactly the same as a market maker does (although with nothing like the speed that a high frequency market-making firm can, hence likely making you uncompetitive in this arena). The prices a market maker sees and the types of orders that they are able to use to realize them are exactly the same as for any other trader." }, { "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": "210678", "title": "", "text": "If you want to convert more than a few thousand dollars, one somewhat complex method is to have two investment accounts at a discount broker that operations both in Canada and the USA, then buy securities for USD on a US exchange, have your broker move them to the Canadian account, then sell them on a Canadian exchange for CAD. This will, of course, incur trading fees, but they should be lower than most currency conversion fees if you convert more than a few thousand dollars, because trading fees typically have a very small percentage component. Using a currency ETF as the security to buy/sell can eliminate the market risk. In any case, it may take up to a week for the trades and transfer to settle." }, { "docid": "442951", "title": "", "text": "do not hold these leveraged/inverse etn's/etf's long term. they are meant for day trading and due to constantly compounding at the end of the day, both negative and positive, they will lose value over time. you are warned, :)" }, { "docid": "166220", "title": "", "text": "I would advise against both, at least in the way you are discussing it. You seem to be talking about day-trading (speculating) in either stock or currency markets. This seems ill-advised. In each trade, one of three things will happen. You will end up ahead and the person you buy from/sell to will end up behind. You will lose and the counterparty will win. Or you both will lose due to trading fees. That said, if you must do one, stick with stocks. They have a reason to have positive returns overall, while currency trade is net-zero. Additionally, as you said, if it sounds like you can gain more with less money, that means that there are many more losers than winners. How do you know you will be a winner? A lot of the reason for this idea that you can gain a lot with less is leverage; make sure you understand it well. On the other hand, it may make sense to learn this lesson now while you have little to lose." } ]

[ { "docid": "384983", "title": "", "text": "\"You mentioned three concepts: (1) trading (2) diversification (3) buy and hold. Trading with any frequency is for people who want to manage their investments as a hobby or profession. You do not seem to be in that category. Diversification is a critical element of any investment strategy. No matter what you do, you should be diversified. All the way would be best (this means owning at least some of every asset out there). The usual way to do this is to own a mutual or index fund. Or several. These funds own hundreds or thousands of stocks, so that buying the fund instantly diversifies you. Buy and hold is the only reasonable approach to a portfolio for someone who is not interested in spending a lot of time managing it. There's no reason to think a buy-and-hold portfolio will underperform a typical traded portfolio, nor that the gains will come later. It's the assets in the portfolio that determine how aggressive/risky it is, not the frequency with which it is traded. This isn't really a site for specific recommendations, but I'll provide a quick idea: Buy a couple of index funds that cover the whole universe of investments. Index funds have low expenses and are the cheapest/easiest way to diversify. Buy a \"\"total stock market\"\" fund and a \"\"total bond fund\"\" in a ratio that you like. If you want, also buy an \"\"international fund.\"\" If you want specific tickers and ratios, another forum would be better(or just ask your broker or 401(k) provider). The bogleheads forum is one that I respect where people are very happy to give and debate specific recommendations. At the end of the day, responsibly managing your investment portfolio is not rocket science and shouldn't occupy a lot of time or worry. Just choose a few funds with low expenses that cover all the assets you are really interested in, put your money in them in a reasonable-ish ratio (no one knows that the best ratio is) and then forget about it.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "229626", "title": "", "text": "\"As already noted, options contain inherent leverage (a multiplier on the profit or loss). The amount of \"\"leverage\"\" is dictated primarily by both the options strike relative to the current share price and the time remaining to expiration. Options are a far more difficult investment than stocks because they require that you are right on both the direction and the timing of the future price movement. With a stock, you could choose to buy and hold forever (Buffett style), and even if you are wrong for 5 years, your unrealized losses can suddenly become realized profits if the shares finally start to rise 6 years later. But with options, the profits and losses become very final very quickly. As a professional options trader, the single best piece of advice I can give to investors dabbling in options for the first time is to only purchase significantly ITM (in-the-money) options, for both calls and puts. Do a web search on \"\"in-the-money options\"\" to see what calls or puts qualify. With ITM options, the leverage is still noticeably better than buying/selling the shares outright, but you have a much less chance of losing all your premium. Also, by being fairly deep in-the-money, you reduce the constant bleed in value as you wait for the expected move to happen (the market moves sideways more than people usually expect). Fairly- to deeply-ITM options are the ones that options market-makers like least to trade in, because they offer neither large nor \"\"easy\"\" premiums. And options market-makers make their living by selling options to retail investors and other people that want them like you, so connect the dots. By trading only ITM options until you become quite experienced, you are minimizing your chances of being the average sucker (all else equal). Some amateur options investors believe that similar benefits could be obtained by purchasing long-expiration options (like LEAPS for 1+ years) that are not ITM (like ATM or OTM options). The problem here is that your significant time value is bleeding away slowly every day you wait. With an ITM option, your intrinsic value is not bleeding out at all. Only the relatively smaller time value of the option is at risk. Thus my recommendation to initially deal only in fairly- to deeply-ITM options with expirations of 1-4 months out, depending on how daring you wish to be with your move timing.\"" }, { "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": "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": "414036", "title": "", "text": "\"During market hours, there are a lot of dealers offering to buy and sell all exchange traded stocks. Dealers don't actually care about the company's fundamentals and they set their prices purely based on order flow. If more people start to buy than sell, the dealer notices his inventory going down and starts upping the price (both his bid and ask). There are also traders who may not be \"\"dealers\"\", but are willing to sell if the price goes high enough or buy if the price goes low enough. This keeps the prices humming along smoothly. During normal trading hours, if you buy something and turn around and sell it two minutes later, you'll probably be losing a couple cents per share. Outside normal market hours, the dealers who continue to have a bid and ask listed know that they don't have access to good price information -- there isn't a liquid market of continuous buying and selling for the dealer to set prices he considers safe. So what does he do? He widens the spread. He doesn't know what the market will open tomorrow at and doesn't know if he'll be able to react quickly to news. So instead of bidding $34.48 and offering at $34.52, he'll move that out to $33 and $36. The dealer still makes money sometimes off this because maybe some trader realized that he has options expiring tomorrow, or a short position that he's going to get a margin call on, or some kind of event that pretty much forces him to trade. Or maybe he's just panicking and overreacting to some news. So why not trade after hours? Because there's no liquidity, and trading when there's no liquidity costs you a lot.\"" }, { "docid": "161201", "title": "", "text": "Your assumption that funds sold in GBP trade in GBP is incorrect. In general funds purchase their constituent stocks in the fund currency which may be different to the subscription currency. Where the subscription currency is different from the fund currency subscriptions are converted into the fund currency before the extra money is used to increase holdings. An ETF, on the other hand, does not take subscriptions directly but by creation (and redemption) of shares. The principle is the same however; monies received from creation of ETF shares are converted into the fund currency and then used to buy stock. This ensures that only one currency transaction is done. In your specific example the fund currency will be USD so your purchase of the shares (assuming there are no sellers and creation occurs) will be converted from GBP to USD and held in that currency in the fund. The fund then trades entirely in USD to avoid currency risk. When you want to sell your exposure (supposing redemption occurs) enough holdings required to redeem your money are sold to get cash in USD and then converted to GBP before paying you. This means that trading activity where there is no need to convert to GBP (or any other currency) does not incur currency conversion costs. In practice funds will always have some cash (or cash equivalents) on hand to pay out redemptions and will have an idea of the number and size of redemptions each calendar period so will use futures and swaps to mitigate FX risk. Where the same firm has two funds traded in different currencies with the same objectives it is likely that one is a wrapper for the other such that one simply converts the currency and buys the other currency denominated ETF. As these are exchange traded funds with a price in GBP the amount you pay for the ETF or gain on selling it is the price given and you will not have to consider currency exchange as that should be done internally as explained above. However, there can be a (temporary) arbitrage opportunity if the price in GBP does not reflect the price in USD and the exchange rate put together." }, { "docid": "116865", "title": "", "text": "\"They pretty much already have what you are looking for. They are called Unit Investment Trusts. The key behind these is (a) the trust starts out with a fixed pool of securities. It is completely unmanaged and there is no buying or selling of the securities, (b) they terminate after a fixed period of time, at which time all assets are distributed among the owners. According to Investment Company Institute, \"\"securities in a UIT are professionally selected to meet a stated investment objective, such as growth, income, or capital appreciation.\"\" UITs sell a fixed number of units at one-time public offering. Securities in a UIT do not trade actively, rather, UITs use a strategy known as buy-and-hold. The UIT purchases a certain amount of securities and holds them until its termination date. Holdings rarely change throughout the life of the trust so unit holders know exactly what they're investing in, and the trust lists all securities in its prospectus. Unit trusts normally sell redeemable units - this obligates the trust to re-purchase investor's units at their net asset value at the investors request.\"" }, { "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": "112714", "title": "", "text": "\"Market makers (shortened MM) in an exchange are generally required to list both a bid and ask price to allow both buyers and sellers to trade and keep the market moving. However, a more general idea of a MM may includes companies off an exchange (say large banks acting as broker/dealers in an over-the-counter market) are not required to give a simultaneous bid/ask, but often will on request. So, it might depend on where you are getting this data but likely the bid/ask was quoted simultaneously. An exchange, like the NASDAQ for instance, may have multiple MMs for a given market. The \"\"market\"\" spread will be from the highest bid to the lowest ask over all the MMs. The highest bid and lowest ask may come from different MMs and any particular MM often will have a larger spread. The size of the spread gives a rough idea of how much a MM is trying to make off of a \"\"round trip\"\" trade (buying than immediately selling to someone else or selling than immediately buying from someone else). Of course, immediate round-trip trades are not always possible and there are many other complications. However, half the spread is a rough indicator of how much they hope to make off of a single trade.\"" }, { "docid": "516136", "title": "", "text": "\"If I buy the one from NSY, is it the \"\"real\"\" Sinopec? No - you are buying an American Depository Receipt. Essentially some American bank or other entity holds a bunch of Sinopec stock and issues certificates to the American exchange that American investors can trade. This insulates the American investors from the cost of international transactions. The price of these ADRs should mimic the price of the underlying stock (including changes the currency exchange rate) otherwise an arbitrage opportunity would exist. Other than that, the main difference between holding the ADR and the actual stock is that ADRs do not have voting rights. So if that is not important to you then for all intents and purposes trading the ADR would be the same as trading the underlying stock.\"" }, { "docid": "420544", "title": "", "text": "If he asked you to invest his money with certain objectives which resulted in you buying specific stocks for him with his money, then sell all the stocks which you bought with his money and the capital and profits to him. You may want to calculate the trading fees that you incurred while buying these specific stocks and taxes from the sale of these stocks, withholding them to over the trading fees that you have already paid and the taxes that you might still need to pay. If you traded with his money no different than yours, then I would think of your investment account as a black box. Calculate the initial money that you both invested at the time you added his capital to the account, calculate how much it all is currently worth, then liquidate and return a percentage equal to that of his initial investment. You can account for trading fees and taxes, subtracting by the same percentage." }, { "docid": "293027", "title": "", "text": "What is your investment goal? Many investors buy for the long haul, not short-term gain. If you're looking for long-term gain then daily fluctuations should be of no concern to you. If you want to day-trade and time the market (buy low and sell high with a short holding period) then yes less volatile stock can be less profitable, but they also carry less risk. In that case, though, transaction fees have more of an impact, and you usually have to trade in larger quantities to reduce the impact of transaction fees." }, { "docid": "491897", "title": "", "text": "\"You can greatly reduce the risk if you can line up a buyer prior to purchasing the car. That kind of thing is common in business, one example is drop shipping. Also there are sales companies that specialize in these kinds of things bringing manufacturers of goods together with customers. The sales companies never take delivery of the product, just a commission on the sales. From this the manufacturers are served as they have gained a customer for their goods. The buying company is served as they can make a \"\"better\"\" end product. The two parties may have not been brought together had it not been for the sales company so on some level both are happy to pay for the service. Can you find market inequalities and profit from them? Sure. I missed a great opportunity recently. I purchased a name brand shirt from a discount store for $20. Those shirts typically sell on ebay for $80. I should have cleaned out that store's inventory, and I bet someone else did as by the time I went back they were gone. That kind of thing was almost risk-less because if the shirts did not sell, I could simply return them for the full purchase price. That and I can afford to buy a few hundred dollars worth of shirts. Can you afford to float 45K CDN? What if it takes a year to sell the car? What if the economy goes sour and you are left \"\"holding the bag\"\"? Why are not car dealers doing exactly what you propose? Here in the US this type of thing is called \"\"horse trading\"\" and is very common. I've both lost and made money on these kind of deals. I would never put a significant amount of my net worth at risk.\"" }, { "docid": "574375", "title": "", "text": "You would place a stop buy market order at 43.90 with a stop loss market order at 40.99 and a stop limit profit order at 49.99. This should all be entered when you place your initial buy stop order. The buy stop order will triger and be traded once the price reaches 43.90or above. At this point both the stop loss market order and the stop limit profit order will become active. If either of them is triggered and traded the other order will be cancelled automatically." }, { "docid": "450184", "title": "", "text": "\"Depends. The short answer is yes; HSBC, for instance, based in New York, is listed on both the LSE and NYSE. Toyota's listed on the TSE and NYSE. There are many ways to do this; both of the above examples are the result of a corporation owning a subsidiary in a foreign country by the same name (a holding company), which sells its own stock on the local market. The home corporation owns the majority holdings of the subsidiary, and issues its own stock on its \"\"home country's\"\" exchange. It is also possible for the same company to list shares of the same \"\"pool\"\" of stock on two different exchanges (the foreign exchange usually lists the stock in the corporation's home currency and the share prices are near-identical), or for a company to sell different portions of itself on different exchanges. However, these are much rarer; for tax liability and other cost purposes it's usually easier to keep American monies in America and Japanese monies in Japan by setting up two \"\"copies\"\" of yourself with one owning the other, and move money around between companies as necessary. Shares of one issue of one company's stock, on one exchange, are the same price regardless of where in the world you place a buy order from. However, that doesn't necessarily mean you'll pay the same actual value of currency for the stock. First off, you buy the stock in the listed currency, which means buying dollars (or Yen or Euros or GBP) with both a fluctuating exchange rate between currencies and a broker's fee (one of those cost savings that make it a good idea to charter subsidiaries; could you imagine millions a day in car sales moving from American dealers to Toyota of Japan, converted from USD to Yen, with a FOREX commission to be paid?). Second, you'll pay the stock broker a commission, and he may charge different rates for different exchanges that are cheaper or more costly for him to do business in (he might need a trader on the floor at each exchange or contract with a foreign broker for a cut of the commission).\"" }, { "docid": "362212", "title": "", "text": "Buying stocks is like an auction. Put in the price you want to pay and see if someone is willing to sell at that price. Thing to remember about after hours trading; There is a lot less supply so there's always a larger bid/ask price spread. That's the price brokers charge to handle the stocks they broker over and above the fee. That means you will always pay more after the market closes. Unless it is bad news, but I don't think you want to buy when that happens. I think a lot of the after market trading is to manipulate the market. Traders drive up the price overnight with small purchases then sell their large holdings when the market opens." }, { "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": "579244", "title": "", "text": "Traditionally, dealers and broker-dealers were in contact with the actual producers of a product or issuers of a security, selling it at the exchange on their behalf. Consumers would traditionally be on the buy side, of course. These days, anyone can enter the market on either side. Even if you don't hold the security or product, you could sell it, and take on the risk of having to stock up on it by the delivery date in exchange for cash or other securities. On the other side, if you can't hold the product or security you could still buy it, taking on the risk of having to dispose of it somehow by delivery in exchange for cash or other securities. In either case you (the sell-side) take on risk and provide products/securities/cash. This is most commonly known as market making. Modern literature coins the terms liquidity taker (buy-side) and liquidity provider (sell-side). Even more accurately, risk management literature would use the terms risk-taker (sell-side) and risk spreader or risk reducer (buy side). This is quite illustrative in modern abstract markets. Take a market that allows for no offsetting or hedging because the product in question is abstract or theoretical, e.g. weather trading, volatility trading, inflation trading, etc. There's always one party trying to eliminate dependence on or correlation to the product (the risk reducer, buy-side) and the counterparty taking on their risk (sell-side)." }, { "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": "525337", "title": "", "text": "Purchases and sales from the same trade date will both settle on the same settlement date. They don't have to pay for their purchases until later either. Because HFT typically make many offsetting trades -- buying, selling, buying, selling, buying, selling, etc -- when the purchases and sales settle, the amount they pay for their purchases will roughly cancel with the amount they receive for their sales (the difference being their profit or loss). Margin accounts and just having extra cash around can increase their ability to have trades that do not perfectly offset. In practice, the HFT's broker will take a smaller amount of cash (e.g. $1 million) as a deposit of capital, and will then allow the HFT to trade a larger amount of stock value long or short (e.g. $10 million, for 10:1 leverage). That $1 million needs to be enough to cover the net profit/loss when the trades settle, and the broker will monitor this to ensure that deposit will be enough." } ]

[ { "docid": "403755", "title": "", "text": "\"1) When it says \"\"an investment or mutual fund\"\", is a mutual fund not an investment? If no, what is the definition of an investment? A mutual fund is indeed an investment. The article probably mentions mutual funds separately from other investments because it is not uncommon for mutual funds to give you the option to automatically reinvest dividends and capital gains. 2) When it says \"\"In terms of stocks\"\", why does it only mention distribution of dividends but not distribution of capital gains? Since distributions are received as cash deposits they can be used to buy more of the stock. Capital gains, on the other hand, occur when an asset increases in value. These gains are realized when the asset is sold. In the case of stocks, reinvestment of capital gains doesn't make much sense since buying more stock after selling it to realize capital gains results in you owning as much stock as you had before you realized the gains. 3) When it says \"\"In terms of mutual funds\"\", it says about \"\"the reinvestment of distributions and dividends\"\". Does \"\"distributions\"\" not include distributions of \"\"dividends\"\"? why does it mention \"\"distributions\"\" parallel to \"\"dividends\"\"? Used in this setting, dividend and distribution are synonymous, which is highlighted by the way they are used in parallel. 4) Does reinvestment only apply to interest or dividends, but not to capital gain? Reinvestment only applies to dividends in the case of stocks. Mutual funds must distribute capital gains to shareholders, making these distributions essentially cash dividends, usually as a special end of year distribution. If you've requested automatic reinvestment, the fund will buy more shares with these capital gain distributions as well.\"" } ]

[ { "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": "354857", "title": "", "text": "You could take these definitions from MSCI as an example of how to proceed. They calculate price indices (PR) and total return indices (including dividends). For performance benchmarks the net total return (NR) indices are usually the most relevant. In your example the gross total return (TR) is 25%. From the MSCI Index Defintions page :- The MSCI Price Indexes measure the price performance of markets without including dividends. On any given day, the price return of an index captures the sum of its constituents’ free float-weighted market capitalization returns. The MSCI Total Return Indexes measure the price performance of markets with the income from constituent dividend payments. The MSCI Daily Total Return (DTR) Methodology reinvests an index constituent’s dividends at the close of trading on the day the security is quoted ex-dividend (the ex-date). Two variants of MSCI Total Return Indices are calculated: With Gross Dividends: Gross total return indexes reinvest as much as possible of a company’s dividend distributions. The reinvested amount is equal to the total dividend amount distributed to persons residing in the country of the dividend-paying company. Gross total return indexes do not, however, include any tax credits. With Net Dividends: Net total return indexes reinvest dividends after the deduction of withholding taxes, using (for international indexes) a tax rate applicable to non-resident institutional investors who do not benefit from double taxation treaties." }, { "docid": "583230", "title": "", "text": "In a traditional IRA (or 401k or equivalent), income tax is not taken on the money when it is deposited or when dividends are reinvested, but money you take out (after you can do do without penalty) is taxed as if it were ordinary income. (I believe that's true; I don't think you get to take the long-term investment rate.) Note that Roth is the opposite: you pay income tax up front before putting money into the retirement account, but you will eventually withdraw without paying any additional tax at that time. Unlike normal investments, neither of these requires tracking the details to know how much tax to pay. There are no taxes due on the reinvested dividends, and you don't need to track cost basis." }, { "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": "596518", "title": "", "text": "I was not able to find any authority for the opinion you suggest. Wash sale rules should, IMHO, apply. According to the regulations, you attribute the newly purchased shares to the oldest sold shares for the purposes of the calculation of the disallowed loss and cost basis. (c) Where the amount of stock or securities acquired within the 61-day period is less than the amount of stock or securities sold or otherwise disposed of, then the particular shares of stock or securities the loss from the sale or other disposition of which is not deductible shall be those with which the stock or securities acquired are matched in accordance with the following rule: The stock or securities acquired will be matched in accordance with the order of their acquisition (beginning with the earliest acquisition) with an equal number of the shares of stock or securities sold or otherwise disposed of. You can resort to the claim that you have not, in fact, entered into the contract within 30 days, but when you gave the instructions to reinvest dividends. I don't know if such a claim will hold, but to me it sounds reasonable. This is similar to the rules re short sales (in (g) there). In this case, wash sale rules will not apply (unless you instructed to reinvest dividends within the 30 days prior to the sale). But I'd ask a tax professional if such a claim would hold, talk to a EA/CPA licensed in your state." }, { "docid": "451301", "title": "", "text": "\"From Wikipedia - Stock: The stock (also capital stock) of a corporation constitutes the equity stake of its owners. It represents the residual assets of the company that would be due to stockholders after discharge of all senior claims such as secured and unsecured debt. Stockholders' equity cannot be withdrawn from the company in a way that is intended to be detrimental to the company's creditors Wikipedia - Dividend: A dividend is a payment made by a corporation to its shareholders, usually as a distribution of profits. When a corporation earns a profit or surplus, it can re-invest it in the business (called retained earnings), and pay a fraction of this reinvestment as a dividend to shareholders. Distribution to shareholders can be in cash (usually a deposit into a bank account) or, if the corporation has a dividend reinvestment plan, the amount can be paid by the issue of further shares or share repurchase. Wikipedia - Bond: In finance, a bond is an instrument of indebtedness of the bond issuer to the holders. It is a debt security, under which the issuer owes the holders a debt and, depending on the terms of the bond, is obliged to pay them interest (the coupon) and/or to repay the principal at a later date, termed the maturity date. Interest is usually payable at fixed intervals (semiannual, annual, sometimes monthly). Very often the bond is negotiable, i.e. the ownership of the instrument can be transferred in the secondary market. This means that once the transfer agents at the bank medallion stamp the bond, it is highly liquid on the second market. Thus, stock is about ownership in the company, dividends are the payments those owners receive, which may be additional shares or cash usually, and bonds are about lending money. Stocks are usually bought through brokers on various stock exchanges generally. An exception can be made under \"\"Employee Stock Purchase Plans\"\" and other special cases where an employee may be given stock or options that allow the purchase of shares in the company through various plans. This would apply for Canada and the US where I have experience just as a parting note. This is without getting into Convertible Bond that also exists: In finance, a convertible bond or convertible note or convertible debt (or a convertible debenture if it has a maturity of greater than 10 years) is a type of bond that the holder can convert into a specified number of shares of common stock in the issuing company or cash of equal value. It is a hybrid security with debt- and equity-like features. It originated in the mid-19th century, and was used by early speculators such as Jacob Little and Daniel Drew to counter market cornering. Convertible bonds are most often issued by companies with a low credit rating and high growth potential.\"" }, { "docid": "442127", "title": "", "text": "I have found The DRiP Investing Resource Center to be a useful resource for more information about DRIP investing. Moneypaper.com offers a list of companies offering both direct purchase options and dividend reinvestment plans. For those offering dividend reinvestment plans, but not direct purchase, you have the option of using a service to purchase your first shares to enroll in the DRIP program. The tax paperwork for DRIPs is a pain due to the partial shares purchased over time when you have to figure out your own cost basis upon sale of shares , but a spreadsheet and a FIFO (first in first out) approach makes it not too much of a headache. -MU" }, { "docid": "394814", "title": "", "text": "well, you know the problem lies with bonds maturing. The issue is not the function COMP but the security itself. You have to use existing total return indices that reflect a constant 10yr maturity position. &gt;perpetually rolled the principal once the bond matured until the present? That would mean your 10y becomes 7y, 5y, 3y, 1y, matured then you reinvest. Not the same. Use SECF to find something like MLT1US10 Index or go to the IND page to see Merrill Lynch's bond indices. They're some of the best." }, { "docid": "359515", "title": "", "text": "A 401-K is something you get through an employer. I recommend getting a self-directed IRA. You can open an IRA with Scottrade with $500 The money you put into an IRA is tax deferred, meaning that you do not have to pay taxes on profits. It may also lower your tax liability. Scottrade has a feature to automatically reinvest any dividends from the securities you own. This feature allows you to avoid commissions on those automatic purchases. Don't try to time the market. Pick a good ETF (exchange traded fund) that pays dividends. It will give you diversification. Avoid the urge to buy and sell constantly. This only gives commissions to the broker." }, { "docid": "241135", "title": "", "text": "Yes, you often can buy stocks directly from the company at little or no transaction cost. Many companies have either a Dividend Reinvestment Plan (DRIP) or a Direct Stock Plan (DSP). With these plans, you purchase shares directly from the company (although, often there is a third party transfer agent that handles the transaction), and the stock is issued in your name. This differs from purchasing stock from a broker, where the stock normally remains in the name of the broker. Generally, in order to begin participating in a DRIP, you need to already be a registered stockholder. This means that you need to purchase your first share of stock outside of the DRIP, and get it in your name. After that, you can register with the DRIP and purchase additional shares directly from the company. If the company has a DSP, you can begin purchasing shares directly without first being a stockholder. With the advent of discount brokers, DRIPs do not save as much money for regular investors as they once did. However, they can still sometimes save money for someone who wants to purchase shares on a regular basis over even a discount broker. If you are interested in DRIPs and DSPs and want to learn more, there is an informative website at dripinvesting.org that has lots of information on which DRIPs are available and how to get started." }, { "docid": "35971", "title": "", "text": "Dividend reinvestment plans are a great option for some of your savings. By making small, regular investments, combined with reinvested dividends, you can accumulate a significant nest egg. Pick a medium to large cap company that looks to be around for the foreseeable future, such as JNJ, 3M, GE, or even Exxon. These companies typically raise their dividends every year or so, and this can be a significant portion of your long term gains. Plus, these programs are usually offered with miniscule fees. Also, have a go at the interest rate formulas contained in your favorite spreadsheet application. Calculate the FutureValue of a series of payments at various interest rates, to see what you can expect. While you cannot depend on earning a specific rate with a stock investment, a basic familiarity with the formula can help you determine a rate of return you should aim for." }, { "docid": "199544", "title": "", "text": "Is that basically it? Trading off between withdrawing-anytime vs paying-capital-gain-tax? No. Another significant factor is dividends. In an IRA they incur no immediate tax and can be reinvested. This causes the account value to compound over the years. Historically, this compounding of dividends provides about half of the total return on investments. In a non-IRA account you have to pay taxes each year on all dividends received, whether you reinvest them or not. So outside of an IRA you have a tax drag on both capital gains and dividends." }, { "docid": "38510", "title": "", "text": "1) Don't trade individual stocks. You expose yourself to unnecessary risk. 2) Pick a fund with low expenses that pays a dividend. Reinvest the dividend back into the fund. To quote Einstein: The greatest power on earth is compound interest. Something is wrong with the software of the site. It will not allow me to answer mark with another comment. So I have to edit this answer to be able to answer him. @mark No, I am not hoping the price will go up. The price is only relevant in comparison to the dividend. It is the dividend that is important, not the price. The price is irrelevant if you never sell. Dividend paying securities are what you buy and hold. Then you reinvest the dividend and buy more of the security. As I am buying the security with the dividend I am actually pleasantly surprised when the price goes down. When the price goes down, but the dividend remains the same, I am able to buy more shares of the security withwith that dividend. So if the price goes down, and the dividend remains the same, it is a good thing. Again, the site will not allow me to add another comment. @mark I profit from my investment, without selling, by receiving the dividend. I used to be a speculator, trying to get ahead of the market by 'buy low, sell high' but all that did was make money for the broker. I lost as much as I gained trying to do that. The broker made money on each transaction, regardless if I did or not. It took me decades to learn the lesson that 'buy and hold' of dividend paying securities is the way to go. Don't make my mistake. I now get, at least, 5.5% yeald on my investment (look at PGF, which forms the backbone of my investments). That is almost 0.5% per month. Each month that dividend is reinvested into PGF, with no commission. You can't beat that with a stick." }, { "docid": "158947", "title": "", "text": "Many brokerages offer automatic dividend reinvestment. It is very infrequent that these dividends are exactly a whole share. So, if you have signed up for automatic dividend reinvestment, many brokerages will reinvest your dividends and assign to you a fractional share. I can't speak for how these shares work with regards to voting, but I can say that the value of these fractional holdings does change with stock price as if one genuinely could hold a fraction of a share." }, { "docid": "52908", "title": "", "text": "Your investment is probably in a Collective Investment Trust. These are not mutual funds, and are not publicly traded. I.e. they are private to plan participants in your company. Because of this, they are not required* to distribute dividends like mutual funds. Instead, they will reinvest dividends automatically, increasing the value of the fund, rather than number of shares, as with dividend reinvestment. Sine you mention the S&P 500 fund you have tracks closely to the S&P Index, keep in mind there's two indexes you could be looking at: Without any new contributions, your fund should closely track the Total Return version for periods 3 months or longer, minus the expense ratio. If you are adding contributions to the fund, you can't just look at the start and end balances. The comparison is trickier and you'll need to use the Internal Rate of Return (look into the XIRR function in Excel/Google Sheets). *MFs are not strictly required to pay dividends, but are strongly tax-incentivized to do so, and essentially all do." }, { "docid": "94302", "title": "", "text": "Depends on how long you're willing to invest for. Broadly speaking, the best (by which I mean, more reliably repeatable) way to make money from market corrections is to accept them as a fact of life, and not sell in a panic when they happen, such that the money you already invested can ride back up again. Put another way, just invest your money in one or two broad, low cost index funds with dividends reinvested (maybe spreading your investment over the course of six months or so) and then let time do its work. Have you worked out how much you've missed out on by holding your money as cash all this time (I presume you've been saving up a while) instead of investing it as you went? I suspect that by waiting for your correction, you've already missed out on more than you're going to make from that correction." }, { "docid": "568944", "title": "", "text": "A share of stock is a small fraction of the ownership of the company. If you expect the company to eventually be of interest to someone who wants to engineer a merger or takeover, it's worth whatever someone is willing to pay to help make that happen or keep it from happening. Which means it will almost always track the company's value to some degree, because the company itself will buy back shares when it can if they get too cheap, to protect itself from takeover. It may also start paying dividends at a later date. You may also value being able to vote on the company's actions. Including whether it should offer a dividend or reinvest that money in the company. Basically, you would want to own that share -- or not -- for the same reasons you would want to own a piece of that business. Because that's exactly what it is." }, { "docid": "385932", "title": "", "text": "\"*(\"\"Fee-only\"\" meaning the only money they make is the fee your folks pay directly; no kickbacks from financial products they're selling.) The answer to this is: for God's sake, leave it alone! I commend you on wanting to help your family avoid more losses. You are right, that having most of one's retirement in one stock or sector is just silly. And again yes, if they're retired, they probably need some bonds. But here's the thing, if they follow your advise and it doesn't work out, it will be a SERIOUS strain on your relationship. Of course you'll still be a family and they'll still love you, but emotionally, you are the reason they lost the money, and that will an elephant in between you. This is especially the case since we're talking about a lot of money here (presumably), and retirement money to boot. You must understand the risk you're taking with your relationships. If you/they lose, at best it'll make things awkward, and you'll feel guilty about their impoverished retirement. At worst it can destroy your relationship with your folks. What about if you win? Won't you be feted and appreciated by your folks for saving them from themselves? Yes, for a short while. Then life moves on. Everything returns to normal. But here's the thing. You won't win. You can't. Because even if you're right here, and they win, that means both they and you will be eager for you to do it again. And at some point they'll take a hit based on your advise. Can I be blunt here? You didn't even know that you can't avoid capital gains taxes by reinvesting stock gains. You don't know enough, and worse, you're not experienced enough. I deduce you're either a college student, or a recent grad. Which means you don't have experience investing your own money. You don't know how the market moves, you just know the theory. You know who you are? You're me, 20 years ago. And thank God my grandparents ignored my advise. I was right about their utilities stocks back then, too. But I know from what I learned in the years afterwards, investing on my own account, that at some point I would have hurt them. And I would have had a very hard time living with that. So, tell your folks to go visit a fee-only financial adviser to create a retirement plan. Perhaps I'm reading into your post, but it seems like you're enthusiastic about investing; stocks, bonds, building wealth, etc. I love that. My advise -- go for it! Pull some money together, and open your own stock account. Do some trading! As much as people grouse about it, the market really is glorious. It's like playing Monopoly, but for keeps. I mean that in the best way possible. It's fun, you can build wealth doing it, and it provides a very useful social purpose. In the spirit of that, check out these ideas (just for you, not for your folks!), based on ideas in your post: Good luck.\"" }, { "docid": "420379", "title": "", "text": "\"As an owner of a share of a business you also \"\"own\"\" profits made by the business. But you delegate company management to reinvest those profits, on your behalf, to make even more profits. So your share of the business is a little money-making machine that should grow, without you having to pay taxes on the dividends and without you having to decide where to reinvest your share of the profit.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "136515", "title": "", "text": "\"Bonds still definitely have a place in many passive portfolios. While it is true that interest rates have been unusually low, yields on reasonable passive bond exposures are still around 2-4%. This is significantly better than both recent past inflation and expected inflation both of which are near zero. This is reasonable if not great return, but Bonds continue to have other nice properties like relatively low risk and diversification of stock portfolios (the \"\"offset[ing] losses\"\" you mention in the OP). So to say that bonds are \"\"no longer a good idea\"\" is certainly not correct. One could say bonds may no longer be a good idea for some people that have a particularly high risk tolerance and very high return requirements. However, to some extent, that has always been true. It is worth remembering also that there is some compelling evidence that global growth is starting to broadly slow down and many people believe that future stock returns and, in general, returns on all investments will be lower. This is much much harder to estimate than bond returns though. Depending on who you believe, bond returns may actually look relatively better than the have in the past. Edit in response to comment: Corporate bond correlation with stocks is positive but generally not very strong (except for high-yield junk bonds) so while they don't offset stock volatility (negative correlation) they do help diversify a stock portfolio. Government bonds have essentially zero correlation so they don't really offset volatility as much as just not add any. Negative correlation assets are generally called insurance and you tend to have to pay for them. So there is no free lunch here. Assets that reduce risk cost money, assets that add little risk give less return and assets that are more risky tend to give more return in the long run but you can feel the pain. The mix that is right for you depends on a lot of things, but for many people that mix involves some corporate and government bonds.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "474129", "title": "", "text": "\"There's a few layers to the Momentum Theory discussed in that book. But speaking in general terms I can answer the following: Kind of. Assuming you understand that historically the Nasdaq has seen a little more volatility than the S&P. And, more importantly, that it tends to track the tech sector more than the general economy. Thus the pitfall is that it is heavily weighted towards (and often tracks) the performance of a few stocks including: Apple, Google (Alphabet), Microsoft, Amazon, Intel and Amgen. It could be argued this is counter intuitive to the general strategy you are trying to employ. This could be tougher to justify. The reason it is potentially not a great idea has less to do with the fact that gold has factors other than just risk on/off and inflation that affect its price (even though it does!); but more to do with the fact that it is harder to own gold and move in and out of positions efficiently than it is a bond index fund. For example, consider buying physical gold. To do so you have to spend some time evaluating the purchase, you are usually paying a slight premium above the spot price to purchase it, and you should usually also have some form of security or insurance for it. So, it has additional costs. Possibly worth it as part of a long-term investment strategy; if you believe gold will appreciate over a decade. But not so much if you are holding it for as little as a few weeks and constantly moving in and out of the position over the year. The same is true to some extent of investing in gold in the form of an ETF. At least a portion of \"\"their gold\"\" comes from paper or futures contracts which must be rolled every month. This creates a slight inefficiency. While possibly not a deal breaker, it would not be as attractive to someone trading on momentum versus fundamentals in my opinion. In the end though, I think all strategies are adaptable. And if you feel gold will be the big mover this year, and want to use it as your risk hedge, who am I or anyone else to tell you that you shouldn't.\"" }, { "docid": "214542", "title": "", "text": "\"Even though \"\"when the U.S. sneezes Canada catches a cold\"\", I would suggest considering a look at Canadian government bonds as both a currency hedge, and for the safety of principal — of course, in terms of CAD, not USD. We like to boast that Canada fared relatively better (PDF) during the economic crisis than many other advanced economies, and our government debt is often rated higher than U.S. government debt. That being said, as a Canadian, I am biased. For what it's worth, here's the more general strategy: Recognize that you will be accepting some currency risk (in addition to the sovereign risks) in such an approach. Consistent with your ETF approach, there do exist a class of \"\"international treasury bond\"\" ETFs, holding short-term foreign government bonds, but their holdings won't necessarily match the criteria I laid out – although they'll have wider diversification than if you invested in specific countries separately.\"" }, { "docid": "404800", "title": "", "text": "First, check out some of the answers on this question: Oversimplify it for me: the correct order of investing When you have determined that you are ready to invest for retirement, there are two things you need to consider: the investment and the account. These are separate items. The investment is what makes your money grow. The type of account provides tax advantages (and restrictions). Generally, these can be considered separately; for the most part, you can do any type of investment in any account. Briefly, here is an overview of some of the main options: In your situation, the Roth IRA is what I would recommend. This grows tax free, and if you need the funds for some reason, you can get out what you put in without penalty. You can invest up to $5500 in your Roth IRA each year. In addition to the above reasons, which are true for anybody, a Roth IRA would be especially beneficial for you for three reasons: For someone that is closer in age to retirement and in a higher tax bracket now, a Roth IRA is less attractive than it is for you. Inside your Roth IRA, there are lots of choices. 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. There are lots of different types of stock mutual funds with different strategies and expenses associated with them. Managed funds actively buy and sell different stocks inside them, but have high expenses to pay the managers. Index funds buy and hold a list of stocks, and have very low expenses. The conventional wisdom is that, in general, index funds perform better than managed funds when you take the expenses into account. I hope this overview and these recommendations were helpful. If you have any specific questions about any of these types of accounts or investments, feel free to ask another question." }, { "docid": "339928", "title": "", "text": "\"A fund is a portfolio, in that it is a collection, so the term is interchangeable for the most part. Funds are made up of a combination of equities positions (i.e., stocks, bonds, etc.) plus some amount of un-invested cash. Most of the time, when people are talking about a \"\"fund\"\", they are describing what is really an investment strategy. In other words, an example would be a \"\"Far East Agressive\"\" fund (just a made up name for illustration here), which focuses on investment opportunities in the Far East that have a higher level of risk than most other investments, thus they provide better returns for the investors. The \"\"portfolio\"\" part of that is what the stocks are that the fund has purchased and is holding on behalf of its investors. Other funds focus on municipal bonds or government bonds, and the list goes on. I hope this helps. Good luck!\"" }, { "docid": "536580", "title": "", "text": "\"Ah I got ya. I partially agree with you, but it's far more complex. I think that is simplifying the debate a bit too much. When people go \"\"passive\"\" you are making the assumption that they are able to stay fully invested the full time period (say 30-40 years until retirement when you might change the asset allocation). This is not a fair assumption because many studies on behavioral finance have shown that people (90% plus) are not able to sit tight through a full market cycle and often sell out during a bear market. I'm not debating you're point that passive often outperforms due to the fees (although there are many managers that do outperform), but the main issue with self-managing and passive investing is people usually make emotional decisions, which then hurts their long-term performance. This would be the reason to hire an adviser. Assuming that people are able to stay passive the entire time and not make a single \"\"active\"\" decision is a very unfair assumption. There was a good study on this referenced in Forbes article below: https://www.forbes.com/sites/advisor/2014/04/24/why-the-average-investors-investment-return-is-so-low/#5169be2b111a Another issue is that there are a lot \"\"active managers\"\" that really just replicate their benchmarks and don't actually actively manage. If you look at active managers who really do have huge under-weights and over-weights relative to their benchmarks they actually tend to outperform them (look at the study below by martin cremers, he's one of the most highly respected researchers when it comes to investment performance research and the active vs passive debate) http://www.cfapubs.org/doi/pdf/10.2469/faj.v73.n2.4 I guess what I'm trying to say is that for most people having an adviser (and paying them a 1% fee) is usually better than going it alone, where they are going to A. chase heat (I bet they always choose the hottest benchmark from the past few years) and B. make poor emotional decisions relating their finances.\"" }, { "docid": "214710", "title": "", "text": "\"I'll answer your question, but first a comment about your intended strategy. Buying government bonds in a retirement account is probably not a good idea. Government bonds (generally) are tax advantaged themselves, so they offer a lower interest rate than other types of bonds. At no tax or reduced tax, many people will accept the lower interest rate because their effective return may be similar or better depending, for example, on their own marginal tax rate. In a tax-advantaged retirement account, however, you'll be getting the lower interest without any additional benefit because that account itself is already tax-advantaged. (Buying bonds generally may be a good idea or not - I won't comment on that - but choose a different category of bonds.) For the general question about the relationship between the Fed rate and the bond rate, they are positively correlated. There's not direct causal relationship in the sense that the Fed is not setting the bond rate directly, but other interest bearing investment options are tied to the Fed rate and many of those interest-bearing options compete for the same investor dollars as the bonds that you're reviewing. That's at a whole market level. Individual bonds, however, may not be so tightly coupled since the creditworthiness of the issuing entity matters a lot too, so it could be that \"\"bond rates\"\" generally are going up but some specific bonds are going down based on something happening with the issuer, just like the stock market might be generally going up even as specific stocks are dropping. Also keep in mind that many bonds trade as securities on a secondary market much like stocks. So I've talked about the bond rate. The price of the bonds themselves on the secondary market generally move opposite to the rate. The reason is that, for example, if you buy a bond at less than face value, you're getting an effective interest rate that's higher because you get the same sized incremental payments of interest but put less money into the investment. And vice versa.\"" }, { "docid": "88223", "title": "", "text": "Correct, long/short strategies should have zero beta with the stock market. But this is intentional, and investors in true *hedged* funds seek this *portable alpha* as a complement to their long-only sleeve in the portfolio. My question is: if for example, you are long low P/E stocks, and a short high P/E stocks what *creates* the alpha? Your portfolio should have zero beta. I believe in the long-run this long/short P/E strategy [generates ~300 basis points of return per year (un-levered)](http://mba.tuck.dartmouth.edu/pages/faculty/ken.french/data_library.html). Is not reasonable to assume if returns from long only investing is driven by beta (and investors use 6% to 12% discount rates in their valuation models), then an an un-levered long/short strategy should always under-perform a long-only strategy in the long-run. The purpose of long/short strategies is not to beat long-only investing, it is to create [portable alpha](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portable_alpha). In fact, at a high level of abstraction, the *average* long/short strategy should not earn a return greater than the risk free rate in the long-run because the strategy has zero beta." }, { "docid": "405212", "title": "", "text": "\"In a comment you say, if the market crashes, doesn't \"\"regress to the mean\"\" mean that I should still expect 7% over the long run? That being the case, wouldn't I benefit from intentionally unbalancing my portfolio and going all in on equities? I can can still rebalance using new savings. No. Regress to the mean just tells you that the future rate is likely to average 7%. The past rate and the future rate are entirely unconnected. Consider a series: The running average is That running average is (slowly) regressing to the long term mean without ever a member of the series being above 7%. Real markets actually go farther than this though. Real value may be increasing by 7% per year, but prices may move differently. Then market prices may revert to the real value. This happened to the S&P 500 in 2000-2002. Then the market started climbing again in 2003. In your system, you would have bought into the falling markets of 2001 and 2002. And you would have missed the positive bond returns in those years. That's about a -25% annual shift in returns on that portion of your portfolio. Since that's a third of your portfolio, you'd have lost 8% more than with the balanced strategy each of those two years. Note that in that case, the market was in an over-valued bubble. The bubble spent three years popping and overshot the actual value. So 2003 was a good year for stocks. But the three year return was still -11%. In retrospect, investors should have gone all in on bonds before 2000 and switched back to stocks for 2003. But no one knew that in 2000. People in the know actually started backing off in 1998 rather than 2000 and missed out on the tail end of the bubble. The rebalancing strategy automatically helps with your regression to the mean. It sells expensive bonds and buys cheaper stocks on average. Occasionally it sells modest priced bonds and buys over-priced stocks. But rarely enough that it is a better strategy overall. Incidentally, I would consider a 33% share high for bonds. 30% is better. And that shouldn't increase as you age (less than 30% bonds may be practical when you are young enough). Once you get close to retirement (five to ten years), start converting some of your savings to cash equivalents. The cash equivalents are guaranteed not to lose value (but might not gain much). This gives you predictable returns for your immediate expenses. Once retired, try to keep about five years of expenses in cash equivalents. Then you don't have to worry about short term market fluctuations. Spend down your buffer until the market catches back up. It's true that bonds are less volatile than stocks, but they can still have bad years. A 70%/30% mix of stocks/bonds is safer than either alone and gives almost as good of a return as stocks alone. Adding more bonds actually increases your risk unless you carefully balance them with the right stocks. And if you're doing that, you don't need simplistic rules like a 70%/30% balance.\"" }, { "docid": "551590", "title": "", "text": "\"From http://blog.ometer.com/2008/03/27/index-funds/ , Lots of sensible advisers will tell you to buy index funds, but importantly, the advice is not simply \"\"buy index funds.\"\" There are at least two other critical details: 1) asset allocation across multiple well-chosen indexes, maintained through regular rebalancing, and 2) dollar cost averaging (or, much-more-complex-but-probably-slightly-better, value averaging). The advice is not to take your single lump sum and buy and hold a cap-weighted index forever. The advice is an investment discipline which involves action over time, and an initial choice among indexes. An index-fund-based strategy is not completely passive, it involves some active risk control through rebalancing and averaging. If you'd held a balanced portfolio over the last ten years and rebalanced, and even better if you'd dollar cost averaged, you'd have done fine. Your reaction to the last 10 years incidentally is why I don't believe an almost-all-stocks allocation makes sense for most people even if they're pretty young. More detail in this answer: How would bonds fare if interest rates rose? I think some index fund advocacy and books do people a disservice by focusing too much on the extra cost of active management and why index funds are a good deal. That point is true, but for most investors, asset allocation, rebalancing, and \"\"autopilotness\"\" of their setup are more important to outcome than the expense ratio.\"" }, { "docid": "551719", "title": "", "text": "\"The standard low-risk/gain very-short-term parking spot these days tends to be a money market account. However, you have only mentioned stock. For good balance, your portfolio should consider the bond market too. Consider adding a bond index fund to diversify the basic mix, taking up much of that 40%. This will also help stabilize your risk since bonds tend to move opposite stocks (prperhaps just because everyone else is also using them as the main alternative, though there are theoretical arguments why this should be so.) Eventually you may want to add a small amount of REIT fund to be mix, but that's back on the higher risk side. (By the way: Trying to guess when the next correction will occur is usually not a winning strategy; guesses tend to go wrong as often as they go right, even for pros. Rather than attempting to \"\"time the market\"\", pick a strategic mix of investments and rebalance periodically to maintain those ratios. There has been debate here about \"\"dollar-cost averaging\"\" -- see other answers -- but that idea may argue for investing and rebalancing in more small chunks rather than a few large ones. I generally actively rebalance once a year or so, and between those times let maintainng the balance suggest which fund(s) new money should go into -- minimal effort and it has worked quite well enough.,)\"" }, { "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": "272174", "title": "", "text": "For a time period as short as a matter of months, commercial paper or bonds about to mature are the highest returning investments, as defined by Benjamin Graham: An investment operation is one which, upon thorough analysis, promises safety of principal and a satisfactory return. Operations not meeting these requirements are speculative. There are no well-known methods that can be applied to cryptocurrencies or forex for such short time periods to promise safety of principal. The problem is that with $1,500, it will be impossible to buy any worthy credit directly and hold to maturity; besides, the need for liquidity eats up the return, risk-adjusted. The only alternative is a bond ETF which has a high probability of getting crushed as interest rates continue to rise, so that fails the above criteria. The only alternative for investment now is a short term deposit with a bank. For speculation, anything goes... The best strategy is to take the money and continue to build up a financial structure: saving for risk-adjusted and time-discounted future annual cash flows. After the average unemployment cycle is funded, approximately six or so years, then long-term investments should be accumulated, internationally diversified equities." }, { "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": "44574", "title": "", "text": "\"I agree with Grade 'Eh' Bacon's answer, but there are a couple of ideas that are relevant to your particular situation: If I were you, I would invest at least half of the cash in growth ETFs because you're young enough that market variability doesn't affect you and long term growth is important. The rest should be invested in safer investments (value and dividend ETFs, bonds, cash) so that you have something to live off in the near term. You said you wanted to invest ethically. The keyword to search is \"\"socially responsible ETFs\"\". There are many, and if this is important to you, you'll have to read their prospectus to find one that matches your ethics. Since you're American, the way I understand it, you need to file taxes on income; selling stocks at a gain is income. You want to make sure that as your stocks appreciate, you sell some every year and immediately rebuy them so that you pay a small tax bill every year rather than one huge tax bill 20 years from now. Claiming about $20600 of capital gains every year would be tax free assuming you are not earning any other money. I would claim a bit more in years where you make a lot. You can mitigate your long term capital gains tax exposure by opening a Roth IRA and maxing that out. Capital gains in the Roth IRA are not taxable. Even if you don't have income from working, you can have some income if you invest in stocks that pay dividends, which would allow you to contribute to a Roth IRA. You should figure where you're going to be living because you will want to minimize the currency risk of having your money in USD while you're living abroad. If the exchange rate were to change by a lot, you might find yourself a lot poorer. There are various hedging strategies, but the easiest one is to invest some of your money in securities of the country you'll be living in. You should look into how you'll be converting money into the foreign currency. There are sometimes way of minimizing the spread when converting large amounts of money, e.g., Norbert's gambit. Shaving off 1.5% when exchanging $100k saves $1500.\"" }, { "docid": "105666", "title": "", "text": "\"First, congratulations on choosing to invest in low cost passively managed plans. If you choose any one of these options and stick with it, you will already be well ahead of most individual investors. Almost all plans will allow you to re-balance between asset classes. With some companies, sales agents will encourage you to sell your overweighted assets and buy underweighted assets as this generates brokerage commissions for them, but when you only need to make minor adjustments, you can simply change the allocation of the new money going into your account until you are back to your target weights. Most plans will let you do this for free, and in general, you will only need to do this every few years at most. I don't see much reason for you to be in the Target funds. The main feature of these plans is that they gradually shift you to a more conservative asset allocation over time, and are designed to prevent people who are close to retirement from being too aggressive and risking a major loss just before retirement. It's very likely that at your age, most plans will have very similar recommendations for your allocation, with equities at 80% or more, and this is unlikely to change for the next few decades. The main benefits of betterment seems to be simplicity and ease of use, but there is one concern I would have for you with betterment. Precisely because it is so easy to tweak your allocation, I'm concerned that you might hurt your long-term results by reacting to short-term market conditions: I know I said I wanted a hands off account, but what if the stock market crashes and I want to allocate more to bonds??? One of the biggest reasons that stock returns are better than bond returns on average is that you are being paid to accept additional risk, and living with significant ups and downs is part of what it means to be in the stock market. If you are tempted to take money out of an asset class when it has been \"\"losing/feels dangerous\"\" and put more in when it is \"\"winning/feels safe\"\", my concerns is that you will end up buying high and selling low. I'd recommend taking a look at this article on the emotional cycle of investing. My point is simply that it's very likely that if you are moving money in and out of stocks based on volatility, you're much less likely to get the full market return over the long term, and might be better off putting more weight in asset classes with lower volatility. Either way, I'd recommend taking one or more risk tolerance assessments online and making sure you're committed to sticking with a long-term plan that doesn't involve more risk than you can really live with. I tend to lean toward Vanguard Life Strategy simply because Vanguard as a company has been around longer, but betterment does seem very accessible to a new investor. Best of luck with your decision!\"" }, { "docid": "599436", "title": "", "text": "\"1. Interest rates What you should know is that the longer the \"\"term\"\" of a bond fund, the more it will be affected by interest rates. So a short-term bond fund will not be subject to large gains or losses due to rate changes, an intermediate-term bond fund will be subject to moderate gains or losses, and a long-term bond fund will be subject to the largest gains or losses. When a book or financial planner says to buy \"\"bonds\"\" with no other qualification, they almost always mean investment-grade intermediate-term bond funds (or for individual bonds, the equivalent would be a bond ladder averaging an intermediate term). If you want technical details, look at the \"\"average duration\"\" or \"\"average maturity\"\" of the bond fund; as a rough guide, if the duration is 10, then a 1% change in interest rates would be a 10% gain or loss on the fund. Another thing you can do is look at long-term (10 years or ideally longer) performance history on some short, intermediate, and long term bond index funds, and you can see how the long term funds bounced around more. Non-investment-grade bonds (aka junk bonds or high yield bonds) are more affected by factors other than interest rates, including some of the same factors (economic booms or recessions) that affect stocks. As a result, they aren't as good for diversifying a portfolio that otherwise consists of stocks. (Having stocks, investment grade bonds, and also a little bit in high-yield bonds can add diversification, though. Just don't replace your bond allocation with high-yield bonds.) A variety of \"\"complicated\"\" bonds exist (convertible bonds are an example) and these are tough to analyze. There are also \"\"floating rate\"\" bonds (bank loan funds), these have minimal interest rate sensitivity because the rate goes up to offset rate rises. These funds still have credit risks, in the credit crisis some of them lost a lot of money. 2. Diversification The purpose of diversification is risk control. Your non-bond funds will outperform in many years, but in other years (say the -37% S&P 500 drop in 2008) they may not. You will not know in advance which year you'll get. You get risk control in at least a few ways. There's also an academic Modern Portfolio Theory explanation for why you should diversify among risky assets (aka stocks), something like: for a given desired risk/return ratio, it's better to leverage up a diverse portfolio than to use a non-diverse portfolio, because risk that can be eliminated through diversification is not compensated by increased returns. The theory also goes that you should choose your diversification between risk assets and the risk-free asset according to your risk tolerance (i.e. select the highest return with tolerable risk). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_portfolio_theory for excruciating detail. The translation of the MPT stuff to practical steps is typically, put as much in stock index funds as you can tolerate over your time horizon, and put the rest in (intermediate-term investment-grade) bond index funds. That's probably what your planner is asking you to do. My personal view, which is not the standard view, is that you should take as much risk as you need to take, not as much as you think you can tolerate: http://blog.ometer.com/2010/11/10/take-risks-in-life-for-savings-choose-a-balanced-fund/ But almost everyone else will say to do the 80/20 if you have decades to retirement and feel you can tolerate the risk, so my view that 60/40 is the max desirable allocation to stocks is not mainstream. Your planner's 80/20 advice is the standard advice. Before doing 100% stocks I'd give you at least a couple cautions: See also:\"" }, { "docid": "322806", "title": "", "text": "\"Diversification is the only real free lunch in finance (reduction in risk without any reduction in expected returns), so clearly every good answer to your question will be \"\"yes.\"\" Diversification is good.\"\" Let's talk about many details your question solicits. Many funds are already pretty diversified. If you buy a mutual fund, you are generally already getting a large portion of the gains from diversification. There is a very large difference between the unnecessary risk in your portfolio if you only hold a couple of stocks and if you hold a mutual fund. Should you be diversified across mutual funds as well? It depends on what your funds are. Many funds, such as target-date funds, are intended to be your sole investment. If you have funds covering every major asset class, then there may not be any additional benefit to buying other funds. You probably could not have picked your \"\"favorite fund\"\" early on. As humans, we have cognitive biases that make us think we knew things early on that we did not. I'm sure at some point at the very beginning you had a positive feeling toward that fund. Today you regret not acting on it and putting all your money there. But the number of such feelings is very large and if you acted on all those, you would do a lot of crazy and harmful things. You didn't know early on which fund would do well. You could just as well have had a good feeling about a fund that subsequently did much worse than your diversified portfolio did. The advice you have had about your portfolio probably isn't based on sound finance theory. You say you have always kept your investments in line with your age. This implies that you believe the guidelines given you by your broker or financial advisor are based in finance theory. Generally speaking, they are not. They are rules of thumb that seemed good to someone but are not rigorously proven either in theory or empirics. For example the notion that you should slowly shift your investments from speculative to conservative as you age is not based on sound finance theory. It just seems good to the people who give advice on such things. Nothing particularly wrong with it, I guess, but it's not remotely on par with the general concept of being well-diversified. The latter is extremely well established and verified, both in theory and in practice. Don't confuse the concept of diversification with the specific advice you have received from your advisor. A fund averaging very good returns is not an anomaly--at least going forward it will not be. There are many thousand funds and a large distribution in their historical performance. Just by random chance, some funds will have a truly outstanding track record. Perhaps the manager really was skilled. However, very careful empirical testing has shown the following: (1) You, me, and people whose profession it is to select outperforming mutual funds are unable to reliably detect which ones will outperform, except in hindsight (2) A fund that has outperformed, even over a long horizon, is not more likely to outperform in the future. No one is stopping you from putting all your money in that fund. Depending on its investment objective, you may even have decent diversification if you do so. However, please be aware that if you move your money based on historical outperformance, you will be acting on the same cognitive bias that makes gamblers believe they are on a \"\"hot streak\"\" and \"\"can't lose.\"\" They can, and so can you. ======== Edit to answer a more specific line of questions =========== One of your questions is whether it makes sense to buy a number of mutual funds as part of your diversification strategy. This is a slightly more subtle question and I will indicate where there is uncertainty in my answer. Diversifying across asset classes. Most of the gains from diversification are available in a single fund. There is a lot of idiosyncratic risk in one or two stocks and much less in a collection of hundreds of stocks, which is what any mutual fund will hold. Still,you will probably want at least a couple of funds in your portfolio. I will list them from most important to least and I will assume the bulk of your portfolio is in a total US equity fund (or S&P500-style fund) so that you are almost completely diversified already. Risky Bonds. These are corporate, municipal, sovereign debt, and long-term treasury debt funds. There is almost certainly a good deal to be gained by having a portion of your portfolio in bonds, and normally a total market fund will not include bond exposure. Bonds fund returns are closely related to interest rate and inflation changes. They are also exposed to some market risk but it's more efficient to get that from equity. The bond market is very large, so if you did market weights you would have more in bonds than in equity. Normally people do not do this, though. Instead you can get the exposure to interest rates by holding a lesser amount in longer-term bonds, rather than more in shorter-term bonds. I don't believe in shifting your weights toward nor away from this type of bond (as opposed to equity) as you age so if you are getting that advice, know that it is not well-founded in theory. Whatever your relative weight in risky bonds when you are young is should also be your weight when you are older. International. There are probably some gains from having some exposure to international markets, although these have decreased over time as economies have become more integrated. If we followed market weights, you would actually put half your equity weight in an international fund. Because international funds are taxed differently (gains are always taxed at the short-term capital gains rate) and because they have higher management fees, most people make only a small investment to international funds, if any at all. Emerging markets International funds often ignore emerging markets in order to maintain liquidity and low fees. You can get some exposure to these markets through emerging markets funds. However, the value of public equity in emerging markets is small when compared with that of developed markets, so according to finance theory, your investment in them should be small as well. That's a theoretical, not an empirical result. Emerging market funds charge high fees as well, so this one is kind of up to your taste. I can't say whether it will work out in the future. Real estate. You may want to get exposure to real estate by buying a real-estate fund (REIT). Though, if you own a house you are already exposed to the real estate market, perhaps more than you want to be. REITs often invest in commercial real estate, which is a little different from the residential market. Small Cap. Although total market funds invest in all capitalization levels, the market is so skewed toward large firms that many total market funds don't have any significant small cap exposure. It's common for individuals to hold a small cap fund to compensate for this, but it's not actually required by investment theory. In principle, the most diversified portfolio should be market-cap weighted, so small cap should have negligible weight in your portfolio. Many people hold small cap because historically it has outperformed large cap firms of equal risk, but this trend is uncertain. Many researchers feel that the small cap \"\"premium\"\" may have been a short-term artifact in the data. Given these facts and the fact that small-cap funds charge higher fees, it may make sense to pass on this asset class. Depends on your opinion and beliefs. Value (or Growth) Funds. Half the market can be classed as \"\"value\"\", while the other half is \"\"growth.\"\" Your total market fund should have equal representation in both so there is no diversification reason to buy a special value or growth fund. Historically, value funds have outperformed over long horizons and many researchers think this will continue, but it's not exactly mandated by the theory. If you choose to skew your portfolio by buying one of these, it should be a value fund. Sector funds. There is, in general, no diversification reason to buy funds that invest in a particular sector. If you are trying to hedge your income (like trying to avoid investing in the tech sector because you work in that sector) or your costs (buying energy because you buy use a disproportionate amount of energy) I could imagine you buying one of these funds. Risk-free bonds. Funds specializing in short-term treasuries or short-term high-quality bonds of other types are basically a substitute for a savings account, CD, money market fund, or other cash equivalent. Use as appropriate but there is little diversification here per se. In short, there is some value in diversifying across asset classes, and it is open to opinion how much you should do. Less well-justified is diversifying across managers within the same asset class. There's very little if any advantage to doing that.\"" }, { "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": "136337", "title": "", "text": "Well, all the client visits in the world aren't going to help them if their active strategies are on par with passive so if they have resigned themselves to that fate they should just call it a day and wrap up shop." } ]

[ { "docid": "283202", "title": "", "text": "\"The fact that some asset (in this case corporate bonds) has positive correlation with some other asset (equity) doesn't mean buying both isn't a good idea. Unless they are perfectly correlated, the best risk/reward portfolio will include both assets as they will sometimes move in opposite directions and cancel out each other's risk. So yes, you should buy corporate bonds. Short-term government bonds are essentially the risk-free asset. You will want to include that as well if you are very risk averse, otherwise you may not. Long-term government bonds may be default free but they are not risk free. They will make money if interest rates fall and lose if interest rates rise. Because of that risk, they also pay you a premium, albeit a small one, and should be in your portfolio. So yes, a passive portfolio (actually, any reasonable portfolio) should strive to reduce risk by diversifying into all assets that it reasonably can. If you believe the capital asset pricing model, the weights on portfolio assets should correspond to market weights (more money in bonds than stocks). Otherwise you will need to choose your weights. Unfortunately we are not able to estimate the true expected returns of risky assets, so no one can really agree on what the true optimal weights should be. That's why there are so many rules of thumb and so much disagreement on the subject. But there is little or no disagreement on the fact that the optimal portfolio does include risky bonds including long-term treasuries. To answer your follow-up question about an \"\"anchor,\"\" if by that you mean a risk-free asset then the answer is not really. Any risk-free asset is paying approximately zero right now. Some assets with very little risk will earn a very little bit more than short term treasuries, but overall there's nowhere to hide--the time value of money is extremely low at short horizons. You want expected returns, you must take risk.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "464297", "title": "", "text": "If you have money and may need to access it at any time, you should put it in a savings account. It won't return much interest, but it will return some and it is easily accessible. If you have all your emergency savings that you need (at least six months of income), buy index-based mutual funds. These should invest in a broad range of securities including both stocks and bonds (three dollars in stocks for every dollar in bonds) so as to be robust in the face of market shifts. You should not buy individual stocks unless you have enough money to buy a lot of them in different industries. Thirty different stocks is a minimum for a diversified portfolio, and you really should be looking at more like a hundred. There's also considerable research effort required to verify that the stocks are good buys. For most people, this is too much work. For most people, broad-based index funds are better purchases. You don't have as much upside, but you also are much less likely to find yourself holding worthless paper. If you do buy stocks, look for ones where you know something about them. For example, if you've been to a restaurant chain with a recent IPO that really wowed you with their food and service, consider investing. But do your research, so that you don't get caught buying after everyone else has already overbid the price. The time to buy is right before everyone else notices how great they are, not after. Some people benefit from joining investment clubs with others with similar incomes and goals. That way you can share some of the research duties. Also, you can get other opinions before buying, which can restrain risky impulse buys. Just to reiterate, I would recommend sticking to mutual funds and saving accounts for most investors. Only make the move into individual stocks if you're willing to be serious about it. There's considerable work involved. And don't forget diversification. You want to have stocks that benefit regardless of what the overall economy does. Some stocks should benefit from lower oil prices while others benefit from higher prices. You want to have both types so as not to be caught flat-footed when prices move. There are much more experienced people trying to guess market directions. If your strategy relies on outperforming them, it has a high chance of failure. Index-based mutual funds allow you to share the diversification burden with others. Since the market almost always goes up in the long term, a fund that mimics the market is much safer than any individual security can be. Maintaining a three to one balance in stocks to bonds also helps as they tend to move in opposite directions. I.e. stocks tend to be good when bonds are weak and vice versa." }, { "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": "44574", "title": "", "text": "\"I agree with Grade 'Eh' Bacon's answer, but there are a couple of ideas that are relevant to your particular situation: If I were you, I would invest at least half of the cash in growth ETFs because you're young enough that market variability doesn't affect you and long term growth is important. The rest should be invested in safer investments (value and dividend ETFs, bonds, cash) so that you have something to live off in the near term. You said you wanted to invest ethically. The keyword to search is \"\"socially responsible ETFs\"\". There are many, and if this is important to you, you'll have to read their prospectus to find one that matches your ethics. Since you're American, the way I understand it, you need to file taxes on income; selling stocks at a gain is income. You want to make sure that as your stocks appreciate, you sell some every year and immediately rebuy them so that you pay a small tax bill every year rather than one huge tax bill 20 years from now. Claiming about $20600 of capital gains every year would be tax free assuming you are not earning any other money. I would claim a bit more in years where you make a lot. You can mitigate your long term capital gains tax exposure by opening a Roth IRA and maxing that out. Capital gains in the Roth IRA are not taxable. Even if you don't have income from working, you can have some income if you invest in stocks that pay dividends, which would allow you to contribute to a Roth IRA. You should figure where you're going to be living because you will want to minimize the currency risk of having your money in USD while you're living abroad. If the exchange rate were to change by a lot, you might find yourself a lot poorer. There are various hedging strategies, but the easiest one is to invest some of your money in securities of the country you'll be living in. You should look into how you'll be converting money into the foreign currency. There are sometimes way of minimizing the spread when converting large amounts of money, e.g., Norbert's gambit. Shaving off 1.5% when exchanging $100k saves $1500.\"" }, { "docid": "339928", "title": "", "text": "\"A fund is a portfolio, in that it is a collection, so the term is interchangeable for the most part. Funds are made up of a combination of equities positions (i.e., stocks, bonds, etc.) plus some amount of un-invested cash. Most of the time, when people are talking about a \"\"fund\"\", they are describing what is really an investment strategy. In other words, an example would be a \"\"Far East Agressive\"\" fund (just a made up name for illustration here), which focuses on investment opportunities in the Far East that have a higher level of risk than most other investments, thus they provide better returns for the investors. The \"\"portfolio\"\" part of that is what the stocks are that the fund has purchased and is holding on behalf of its investors. Other funds focus on municipal bonds or government bonds, and the list goes on. I hope this helps. Good luck!\"" }, { "docid": "7796", "title": "", "text": "\"Okay, so... &gt; Lifting* the offer (hit bids, lift offers). And I suppose that's a stategy, albeit a somewhat simple one. Passive routing strategies differ from firm to firm and algo to algo. What is your customer going to think if you bid up a new price level only for the stock to rally completely away from it? I mean if you have an open order for more than 10 times the amount currently offered with a limit above the offer, and you havent gotten filled on the bid, what can you do but lift the offer and try to be first at the next price level up? At least you would have gotten some at the price they quoted, or are they fill or kill? &gt; \"\"Bidding it up to attract sellers\"\" sounds an awful lot like spoofing, just a heads up. Sure though, if you want to tighten a spread or create new levels with aggressive passive liquidity, that is a strategy. The same caveats as I mentioned above apply. Just to be clear, 'aggressively adding passive liquidity' is the more apt way to put it - I'm talking about when you actually want to get filled on those bids but you're having trouble finding sellers. Could you give me an example of what you might consider passive or aggressive, just for scale - would a mkt impact of .10% raise any eyebrows? How do you gauge fair value or does that matter less to you than just accumulating/selling what you can for what you were asked to? &gt; Anyway, if market impact isn't an issue for the customer, sure, take liquidity until you're filled. Don't forget about getting good size done in the opening and closing auctions (MOO/MOC). If you're too passive you risk the market moving away from you and pissing off the customer. If you're too aggressive you risk moving the market too much and pissing off the customer. So then is the question more 'how motivated is the buyer or seller?' I'm glad you bring up the MOO/MOC, are there certain securities that don't have much of a market in those auctions? Trying to suss out how a large firm can hold a position in some of the less popular names with next to no liquidity and little in the way of dark pool, auction, block sales, etc.\"" }, { "docid": "568667", "title": "", "text": "Kiyosaki says his methods of actions are not suitable for the average investor. They are meant for those wanting to excel at investing, and are willing to work for it. Personally, I wouldn't want to own ten apartments, because it sounds like a terrible headache. I would much rather have a huge portfolio of index funds. I believe that Kiyosaki's method allegedly perform better than the passive 'invest-diversify-hold' strategy, but would require a new mindset and dedication, and are risky unless you are willing to invest a lot of time learning the fine details. I prefer to dedicate my time elsewhere." }, { "docid": "218747", "title": "", "text": "It is a dangerous policy not to have a balance across the terms of assets. Short term reserves should remain in short term investments because they are most likely needed in the short term. The amount can be shaved according to the probability of their respective needs, but long term asset variance usually exceed the probability of needing to use reserves. For example, replacing one month bonds paying essentially nothing with stocks that should be expected to return 9% will expose oneself to a possible sudden 50% loss. If cash is indeed so abundant that reserves can be doubled, this policy can be expected to be stable; however, cash is normally scarce. It is a risky policy to place reserves that have a 20% chance of being 100% liquidated into investments that have a 20% chance of declining by approximately 50% just for a chance of an extra 9% annual return. Financial stability should always be of primary concern with rate of return secondary only after stability has been reasonably assured." }, { "docid": "520132", "title": "", "text": "\"&gt; Is your time frame any longer than intraday? I imagine you wouldn't want to carry that risk overnight if you're a broker or selling a route.. Most brokers these days are executing in an agent capacity, so they're never holding the risk. They execute what they can, the customer keeps what they can't. &gt; So, say for instance you join a bid a few levels down, you aren't really get filled, you start hitting the offer and eventually you realize you're competing with someone for the shares offered, so you take out the price level and bid on all the exchanges so that you're first on the bid at that level, then repeat until someone that can match your appetite starts to fill you on the bid? Lifting* the offer (hit bids, lift offers). And I suppose that's a stategy, albeit a somewhat simple one. Passive routing strategies differ from firm to firm and algo to algo. What is your customer going to think if you bid up a new price level only for the stock to rally completely away from it? &gt; Right, so say you need 100k shares, there are 10k offered at 9.98, 25k offered at 9.99, and 65k at 10.00, you might just enter an intermarket sweep order of 100k @ 10 limit and hope that you can get most of the shares off before everyone can cancel? I imagine there has to be a lot of bidding it up to attract sellers and then letting people take out your bids all day... \"\"Bidding it up to attract sellers\"\" sounds an awful lot like [spoofing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoofing_(finance\\)), just a heads up. Sure though, if you want to tighten a spread or create new levels with aggressive passive liquidity, that is a strategy. The same caveats as I mentioned above apply. Anyway, if market impact isn't an issue for the customer, sure, take liquidity until you're filled. Don't forget about getting good size done in the opening and closing auctions (MOO/MOC). If you're too passive you risk the market moving away from you and pissing off the customer. If you're too aggressive you risk moving the market too much and pissing off the customer.\"" }, { "docid": "105666", "title": "", "text": "\"First, congratulations on choosing to invest in low cost passively managed plans. If you choose any one of these options and stick with it, you will already be well ahead of most individual investors. Almost all plans will allow you to re-balance between asset classes. With some companies, sales agents will encourage you to sell your overweighted assets and buy underweighted assets as this generates brokerage commissions for them, but when you only need to make minor adjustments, you can simply change the allocation of the new money going into your account until you are back to your target weights. Most plans will let you do this for free, and in general, you will only need to do this every few years at most. I don't see much reason for you to be in the Target funds. The main feature of these plans is that they gradually shift you to a more conservative asset allocation over time, and are designed to prevent people who are close to retirement from being too aggressive and risking a major loss just before retirement. It's very likely that at your age, most plans will have very similar recommendations for your allocation, with equities at 80% or more, and this is unlikely to change for the next few decades. The main benefits of betterment seems to be simplicity and ease of use, but there is one concern I would have for you with betterment. Precisely because it is so easy to tweak your allocation, I'm concerned that you might hurt your long-term results by reacting to short-term market conditions: I know I said I wanted a hands off account, but what if the stock market crashes and I want to allocate more to bonds??? One of the biggest reasons that stock returns are better than bond returns on average is that you are being paid to accept additional risk, and living with significant ups and downs is part of what it means to be in the stock market. If you are tempted to take money out of an asset class when it has been \"\"losing/feels dangerous\"\" and put more in when it is \"\"winning/feels safe\"\", my concerns is that you will end up buying high and selling low. I'd recommend taking a look at this article on the emotional cycle of investing. My point is simply that it's very likely that if you are moving money in and out of stocks based on volatility, you're much less likely to get the full market return over the long term, and might be better off putting more weight in asset classes with lower volatility. Either way, I'd recommend taking one or more risk tolerance assessments online and making sure you're committed to sticking with a long-term plan that doesn't involve more risk than you can really live with. I tend to lean toward Vanguard Life Strategy simply because Vanguard as a company has been around longer, but betterment does seem very accessible to a new investor. Best of luck with your decision!\"" }, { "docid": "500452", "title": "", "text": "As one of the answers described, its going to depend on many factors and the environment at the time. But there is no sure way to know which strategy is better, if any are at all. I would say over several hundred years the strategies would be equally as profitable. In a free market the longer dated bonds would be priced lower (higher yield) because they are higher risk. And over a long enough time period that higher risk may end up resulting in that bond being worth less, or maybe nothing at all. In a free market, price discovery would factor all this in, and the two strategies would become equal. The same is true for the price during inversion events Having said that, we dont live in a free market. With central bankers monetizing debt in so many countries, sometimes investing in short term bonds, including US treasuries, is a guaranteed way to lose purchasing power, as these yields are below inflation and sometimes even negative." }, { "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": "585494", "title": "", "text": "\"Pay off the credit cards. From now on, pay off the credit cards monthly. Under no circumstances should you borrow money. You have net worth but no external income. Borrowing is useless to you. $200,000 in two bank accounts, because if one bank collapses, you want to have a spare while you wait for the government to pay off the guarantee. Keep $50,000 in checking and another $50k in savings. The remainder put into CDs. Don't expect interest income beyond inflation. Real interest rates (after inflation) are often slightly negative. People ask why you might keep money in the bank rather than stocks/bonds. The problem is that stocks/bonds don't always maintain their value, much less go up. The bank money won't gain, but it won't suddenly lose half its value either. It can easily take five years after a stock market crash for the market to recover. You don't want to be withdrawing from losses. Some people have suggested more bonds and fewer stocks. But putting some of the money in the bank is better than bonds. Bonds sometimes lose money, like stocks. Instead, park some of the money in the bank and pick a more aggressive stock/bond mixture. That way you're never desperate for money, and you can survive market dips. And the stock/bond part of the investment will return more at 70/30 than 60/40. $700,000 in stock mutual funds. $300,000 in bond mutual funds. Look for broad indexes rather than high returns. You need this to grow by the inflation rate just to keep even. That's $20,000 to $30,000 a year. Keep the balance between 70/30 and 75/25. You can move half the excess beyond inflation to your bank accounts. That's the money you have to spend each year. Don't withdraw money if you aren't keeping up with inflation. Don't try to time the market. Much better informed people with better resources will be trying to do that and failing. Play the odds instead. Keep to a consistent strategy and let the market come back to you. If you chase it, you are likely to lose money. If you don't spend money this year, you can save it for next year. Anything beyond $200,000 in the bank accounts is available for spending. In an emergency you may have to draw down the $200,000. Be careful. It's not as big a cushion as it seems, because you don't have an external income to replace it. I live in southern California but would like to move overseas after establishing stable investments. I am not the type of person that would invest in McDonald's, but would consider other less evil franchises (maybe?). These are contradictory goals, as stated. A franchise (meaning a local business of a national brand) is not a \"\"stable investment\"\". A franchise is something that you actively manage. At minimum, you have to hire someone to run the franchise. And as a general rule, they aren't as turnkey as they promise. How do you pick a good manager? How will you tell if they know how the business works? Particularly if you don't know. How will you tell that they are honest and won't just embezzle your money? Or more honestly, give you too much of the business revenues such that the business is not sustainable? Or spend so much on the business that you can't recover it as revenue? Some have suggested that you meant brand or stock rather than franchise. If so, you can ignore the last few paragraphs. I would be careful about making moral judgments about companies. McDonald's pays its workers too little. Google invades privacy. Exxon is bad for the environment. Chase collects fees from people desperate for money. Tesla relies on government subsidies. Every successful company has some way in which it can be considered \"\"evil\"\". And unsuccessful companies are evil in that they go out of business, leaving workers, customers, and investors (i.e. you!) in the lurch. Regardless, you should invest in broad index funds rather than individual stocks. If college is out of the question, then so should be stock investing. It's at least as much work and needs to be maintained. In terms of living overseas, dip your toe in first. Rent a small place for a few months. Find out how much it costs to live there. Remember to leave money for bigger expenses. You should be able to live on $20,000 or $25,000 a year now. Then you can plan on spending $35,000 a year to do it for real (including odd expenses that don't happen every month). Make sure that you have health insurance arranged. Eventually you may buy a place. If you can find one that you can afford for something like $100,000. Note that $100,000 would be low in California but sufficient even in many places in the US. Think rural, like the South or Midwest. And of course that would be more money in many countries in South America, Africa, or southern Asia. Even southern and eastern Europe might be possible. You might even pay a bit more and rent part of the property. In the US, this would be a duplex or a bed and breakfast. They may use different terms elsewhere. Given your health, do you need a maid/cook? That would lean towards something like a bed and breakfast, where the same person can clean for both you and the guests. Same with cooking, although that might be a second person (or more). Hire a bookkeeper/accountant first, as you'll want help evaluating potential purchases. Keep the business small enough that you can actively monitor it. Part of the problem here is that a million dollars sounds like a lot of money but isn't. You aren't rich. This is about bare minimum for surviving with a middle class lifestyle in the United States and other first world countries. You can't live like a tourist. It's true that many places overseas are cheaper. But many aren't (including much of Europe, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, etc.). And the ones that aren't may surprise you. And you also may find that some of the things that you personally want or need to buy are expensive elsewhere. Dabble first and commit slowly; be sure first. Include rarer things like travel in your expenses. Long term, there will be currency rate worries overseas. If you move permanently, you should certainly move your bank accounts there relatively soon (perhaps keep part of one in the US for emergencies that may bring you back). And move your investments as well. Your return may actually improve, although some of that is likely to be eaten up by inflation. A 10% return in a country with 12% inflation is a negative real return. Try to balance your investments by where your money gets spent. If you are eating imported food, put some of the investment in the place from which you are importing. That way, if exchange rates push your food costs up, they will likely increase your investments at the same time. If you are buying stuff online from US vendors and having it shipped to you, keep some of your investments in the US for the same reason. Make currency fluctuations work with you rather than against you. I don't know what your circumstances are in terms of health. If you can work, you probably should. Given twenty years, your million could grow to enough to live off securely. As is, you would be in trouble with another stock market crash. You'd have to live off the bank account money while you waited for your stocks and bonds to recover.\"" }, { "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": "815", "title": "", "text": "\"I used to work for one of the three ratings agencies. Awhile ago. First: There are lots of different ratings. The bulk of ratings are for corporate debt and public finance. So senior debentures (fixed income) and General Obligations e.g. tax-free muni bonds, respectively. Ratings agencies are NOT paid by the investment banks, they are paid by the corporations or city/ state that is issuing debt. The investment banks are the syndicate that pulls the transaction together and brings it to market. For mortgage-backed securities, collateralized debt CDO-CLO's, all of which are fancy structured securitizations, well, that is a different matter! Those transactions are the ones where there is an inappropriately close tie between the investment bankers and ratings agencies. And those were the ratings that blew out and caused problems. Ratings agencies continued to do a decent job with what WAS their traditional business, corporate and municipal bond ratings, as far as I know. What khajja said was 100% correct: S&amp;P's fees were paid by investors, the people who were purchasing the bonds, until about 50 years ago. Around the same time that McGraw-Hill purchased S&amp;P, in 1966, they departed from that model, and started charging the bond issuers for ratings. I don't know if that decision was driven by McGraw-Hill or not, though. One more thing: Not all credit ratings agencies are paid by the issuers. One of the 10 NRSRO's (a designation given by the S.E.C.) is Egan-Jones. Their revenue comes from the investors, bond purchasers, not the companies issuing bonds, unlike the S&amp;P/ Fitch/ Moody's \"\"business model\"\". So there is an alternative, which I consider hopeful and reason not to totally despair. EDIT: What xcrunna19 mentions is also totally accurate. The part about Nouriel Roubini (who is a professor at N.Y.U. or Columbia or such and a sensible though slightly high strung sort) is consistent with my impression. As for whether it would require government action to implement the changes advocated by Roubini, yes, I guess it would, but I don't know if the government would do that. It would be better if the credit ratings agencies would find their own way to a different, less conflicted payment-incentive model. Keep in mind too that many of the provisions of Dodd-Frank have removed the existing regulatory requirements for credit ratings on bonds and other securities. This is the scary part though: There isn't anything to replace the credit ratings agencies, not at the moment, as far as I can tell! Eventually the government is supposed to come up with an alternative, but that hasn't happened yet. Which is better: Not requiring ratings at all, or the past situation of sometimes inflated ratings, which imparted a false sense of confidence? I don't know.\"" }, { "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": "292991", "title": "", "text": "As mentioned in the other answer, you can't invest all of your money in one slightly risky place, and to receive a significant return on your investment, you must take on a reasonable amount of risk, and must manage that risk by diversifying your portfolio of investments. Unfortunately, answers to this question will be somewhat opinion and experience-based. I have two suggestions, however both involve risk, which you will likely experience in any situation. Peer to Peer Lending In my own situation, I've placed a large sum of money into peer-to-peer lending sites, such as LendingClub. LendingClub specifically advertises that 98% of its user base that invests in 100 notes or more of relatively equal size receive positive returns, and I'm sure you'll see similar statements in other similarly established vendors in this area. Historical averages in this industry can be between 5-7%, you may be able to perform above or below this average. The returns on peer to peer lending investments are paid out fairly frequently, as each loan you invest in on the site pays back into your account every time the recipient of the loan makes a payment. If you invest in small amounts / fractions of several hundred loans, you're receiving several small payments throughout the month on various dates. You can withdraw any money you have received back that hasn't been invested, or money you have in the account that hasn't been invested, at any time for personal spending. However, this involves various risks, which have to be considered (Such as someone you've loaned money to on the site defaulting). Rental Property / Property itself I'm also considering purchasing a very cheap home, and renting it out to tenants for passive income. This is something I would consider a possibility for you. On this front, you have the savings to do the same. It would be possible for you to afford the 20% downpayment on a very low cost home (Say, $100,000 or less up to $200,000 depending on your area), but you'd need to be able to pay for the monthly mortgage payment until you had a tenant, and would need to be able to afford any on-going maintenance, however ideally you'd factor that into the amount you charged tenants. You could very likely get a mortgage for a place, and have a tenant that pays you rent that exceeds the amount you pay for the mortgage and any maintenance costs, earning you a profit and therefore passive income. However, rental properties involve risks in that you might have trouble finding tenants or keeping tenants or keeping the property in good shape, and it's possible the property value could decrease. One could also generalize that property is a somewhat 'safe' investment, in that property values tend to increase over time, and while you may not significantly over-run inflation's increase, you may be able to get more value out of the property by renting it out in the mean time. Additional Note on Credit You mention you have a credit card payment that you're making, to build credit. I'd like to place here, for your reference, that you do not need to carry a balance to build credit. Having active accounts and ensuring you don't miss payments builds your history. To be more specific, your history is based off of many different aspects, such as: I'm sure I missed a couple of things on this front, you should be able to find this information with some research. Wanted to make sure you weren't carrying a balance simply due to the common myth that you must do so to build credit. Summary The items mentioned above are suggestions, but whatever you choose to invest in, you should carefully spread out / diversify your portfolio across a variety of different areas. It would not be advisable to stick to just one investment method (Say, either of the two above) and not also invest in stocks / bonds or other types of investments as well. You can certainly decide what percentage of your portfolio you want to invest in different areas (for instance X% of assets in Stocks/bonds, Y% in real-estate, etc), but it does make the most sense to not have all of your eggs in one basket." }, { "docid": "214542", "title": "", "text": "\"Even though \"\"when the U.S. sneezes Canada catches a cold\"\", I would suggest considering a look at Canadian government bonds as both a currency hedge, and for the safety of principal — of course, in terms of CAD, not USD. We like to boast that Canada fared relatively better (PDF) during the economic crisis than many other advanced economies, and our government debt is often rated higher than U.S. government debt. That being said, as a Canadian, I am biased. For what it's worth, here's the more general strategy: Recognize that you will be accepting some currency risk (in addition to the sovereign risks) in such an approach. Consistent with your ETF approach, there do exist a class of \"\"international treasury bond\"\" ETFs, holding short-term foreign government bonds, but their holdings won't necessarily match the criteria I laid out – although they'll have wider diversification than if you invested in specific countries separately.\"" }, { "docid": "343693", "title": "", "text": "\"The answer to your question depends very much on your definition of \"\"long-term\"\". Because let's make something clear: an investment horizon of three to six months is not long term. And you need to consider the length of time from when an \"\"emergency\"\" develops until you will need to tap into the money. Emergencies almost by definition are unplanned. When talking about investment risk, the real word that should be used is volatility. Stocks aren't inherently riskier than bonds issued by the same company. They are likely to be a more volatile instrument, however. This means that while stocks can easily gain 15-20 percent or more in a year if you are lucky (as a holder), they can also easily lose just as much (which is good if you are looking to buy, unless the loss is precipitated by significantly weaker fundamentals such as earning lookout). Most of the time stocks rebound and regain lost valuation, but this can take some time. If you have to sell during that period, then you lose money. The purpose of an emergency fund is generally to be liquid, easily accessible without penalties, stable in value, and provide a cushion against potentially large, unplanned expenses. If you live on your own, have good insurance, rent your home, don't have any major household (or other) items that might break and require immediate replacement or repair, then just looking at your emergency fund in terms of months of normal outlay makes sense. If you own your home, have dependents, lack insurance and have major possessions which you need, then you need to factor those risks into deciding how large an emergency fund you might need, and perhaps consider not just normal outlays but also some exceptional situations. What if the refrigerator and water heater breaks down at the same time that something breaks a few windows, for example? What if you also need to make an emergency trip near the same time because a relative becomes seriously ill? Notice that the purpose of the emergency fund is specifically not to generate significant interest or dividend income. Since it needs to be stable in value (not depreciate) and liquid, an emergency fund will tend towards lower-risk and thus lower-yield investments, the extreme being cash or the for many more practical option of a savings account. Account forms geared toward retirement savings tend to not be particularly liquid. Sure, you can usually swap out one investment vehicle for another, but you can't easily withdraw your money without significant penalties if at all. Bonds are generally more stable in value than stocks, which is a good thing for a longer-term portion of an emergency fund. Just make sure that you are able to withdraw the money with short notice without significant penalties, and pick bonds issued by stable companies (or a fund of investment-grade bonds). However, in the present investment climate, this means that you are looking at returns not significantly better than those of a high-yield savings account while taking on a certain amount of additional risk. Bonds today can easily have a place if you have to pick some form of investment vehicle, but if you have the option of keeping the cash in a high-yield savings account, that might actually be a better option. Any stock market investments should be seen as investments rather than a safety net. Hopefully they will grow over time, but it is perfectly possible that they will lose value. If what triggers your financial emergency is anything more than local, it is certainly possible to have that same trigger cause a decline in the stock market. Money that you need for regular expenses, even unplanned ones, should not be in investments. Thus, you first decide how large an emergency fund you need based on your particular situation. Then, you build up that amount of money in a savings vehicle rather than an investment vehicle. Once you have the emergency fund in savings, then by all means continue to put the same amount of money into investments instead. Just make sure to, if you tap into the emergency fund, replenish it as quickly as possible.\"" }, { "docid": "163197", "title": "", "text": "If you want to invest in stocks, bonds and mutual funds I would suggest you take a portion of your inheritance and use it to learn how to invest in this asset class wisely. Take courses on investing and trading (two different things) in paper assets and start trading on a fantasy exchange to test and hone your investment skills before risking any of your money. Personally I don't find bonds to have a meaningful rate of return and I prefer stocks that have a dividend over those that don't. Parking some of your money in an IRA is a good strategy for when you do not see opportunities to purchase cashflow-positive assets right away; this allows you to wait and deploy your capital when the opportunity presents itself and to educate yourself on what a good opportunity looks like." } ]

[ { "docid": "248158", "title": "", "text": "No. That's the point of a passive strategy: you maintain a more or less constant mix of assets and don't try to figure out what's going to move where." } ]

[ { "docid": "155242", "title": "", "text": "You have to look at the market conditions and make decisions based on them. Ideally, you may want to have 30% of your portfolio in bonds. But from a practical point of view, it's probably not so smart to invest in bond funds right at this moment given the interest rate market. Styles of funds tend to go into and out of style. I personally do asset allocation two ways in my 457 plan (like a 401k for government workers): In my IRA, I invest in a portfolio of 5-6 stocks. The approach you take is dependent on what you are able to put into it. I invest about 10 hours a week into investment related research. If you can't do that, you want a strategy that is simpler -- but you still need to be cognizant of market conditions." }, { "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": "343040", "title": "", "text": "Statistically speaking active strategies **are** strictly on par with, or worse when you subtract fees, than passive strategies (regardless of how much time or money you spend investigating companies). Actively managed mutual funds are by and large just a racket where one class of rich people soaks another class of rich people plus some of the middle class. So yeah they should go ahead and call it a day. About time IMO." }, { "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": "500986", "title": "", "text": "\"This is always a judgement call based on your own tolerance for risk. Yes, you have a fairly long time horizon and that does mean you can accept more risk/more volatility than someone closer to starting to draw upon those savings, but you're old enough and have enough existing savings that you want to start thinking about reducing the risk a notch. So most folks in your position would not put 100% in stocks, though exactly how much should be moved to bonds is debatable. One traditional rule of thumb for a moderately conservative position is to subtract your age from 100 and keep that percentage of your investments in stock. Websearch for \"\"stock bond age\"\" will find lots of debate about whether and how to modify this rule. I have gone more aggressive myself, and haven't demonstrably hurt myself, but \"\"past results are no guarantee of future performance\"\". A paid financial planning advisor can interview you about your risk tolerance, run some computer models, and recommend a strategy, with some estimate of expected performance and volatility. If you are looking for a semi-rational approach, that may be worth considering, at least as a starting point.\"" }, { "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": "218747", "title": "", "text": "It is a dangerous policy not to have a balance across the terms of assets. Short term reserves should remain in short term investments because they are most likely needed in the short term. The amount can be shaved according to the probability of their respective needs, but long term asset variance usually exceed the probability of needing to use reserves. For example, replacing one month bonds paying essentially nothing with stocks that should be expected to return 9% will expose oneself to a possible sudden 50% loss. If cash is indeed so abundant that reserves can be doubled, this policy can be expected to be stable; however, cash is normally scarce. It is a risky policy to place reserves that have a 20% chance of being 100% liquidated into investments that have a 20% chance of declining by approximately 50% just for a chance of an extra 9% annual return. Financial stability should always be of primary concern with rate of return secondary only after stability has been reasonably assured." }, { "docid": "106620", "title": "", "text": "\"The best predictor of mutual fund performance is low expense ratio, as reported by Morningstar despite the fact that it produces the star ratings you cite. Most of the funds you list are actively managed and thus have high expense ratios. Even if you believe there are mutual fund managers out there that can pick investments intelligently enough to offset the costs versus a passive index fund, do you trust that you will be able to select such a manager? Most people that aren't trying to sell you something will advise that your best bet is to stick with low-cost, passive index funds. I only see one of these in your options, which is FUSVX (Fidelity Spartan 500 Index Fund Fidelity Advantage Class) with an exceptionally low expense ratio of 0.05%. Do you have other investment accounts with more choices, like an IRA? If so you might consider putting a major chunk of your 401(k) money into FUSVX, and use your IRA to balance your overall porfolio with small- and medium-cap domestic stock, international stock, and bond funds. As an aside, I remember seeing a funny comment on this site once that is applicable here, something along the lines of \"\"don't take investment advice from coworkers unless they're Warren Buffett or Bill Gross\"\".\"" }, { "docid": "88223", "title": "", "text": "Correct, long/short strategies should have zero beta with the stock market. But this is intentional, and investors in true *hedged* funds seek this *portable alpha* as a complement to their long-only sleeve in the portfolio. My question is: if for example, you are long low P/E stocks, and a short high P/E stocks what *creates* the alpha? Your portfolio should have zero beta. I believe in the long-run this long/short P/E strategy [generates ~300 basis points of return per year (un-levered)](http://mba.tuck.dartmouth.edu/pages/faculty/ken.french/data_library.html). Is not reasonable to assume if returns from long only investing is driven by beta (and investors use 6% to 12% discount rates in their valuation models), then an an un-levered long/short strategy should always under-perform a long-only strategy in the long-run. The purpose of long/short strategies is not to beat long-only investing, it is to create [portable alpha](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portable_alpha). In fact, at a high level of abstraction, the *average* long/short strategy should not earn a return greater than the risk free rate in the long-run because the strategy has zero beta." }, { "docid": "551719", "title": "", "text": "\"The standard low-risk/gain very-short-term parking spot these days tends to be a money market account. However, you have only mentioned stock. For good balance, your portfolio should consider the bond market too. Consider adding a bond index fund to diversify the basic mix, taking up much of that 40%. This will also help stabilize your risk since bonds tend to move opposite stocks (prperhaps just because everyone else is also using them as the main alternative, though there are theoretical arguments why this should be so.) Eventually you may want to add a small amount of REIT fund to be mix, but that's back on the higher risk side. (By the way: Trying to guess when the next correction will occur is usually not a winning strategy; guesses tend to go wrong as often as they go right, even for pros. Rather than attempting to \"\"time the market\"\", pick a strategic mix of investments and rebalance periodically to maintain those ratios. There has been debate here about \"\"dollar-cost averaging\"\" -- see other answers -- but that idea may argue for investing and rebalancing in more small chunks rather than a few large ones. I generally actively rebalance once a year or so, and between those times let maintainng the balance suggest which fund(s) new money should go into -- minimal effort and it has worked quite well enough.,)\"" }, { "docid": "520132", "title": "", "text": "\"&gt; Is your time frame any longer than intraday? I imagine you wouldn't want to carry that risk overnight if you're a broker or selling a route.. Most brokers these days are executing in an agent capacity, so they're never holding the risk. They execute what they can, the customer keeps what they can't. &gt; So, say for instance you join a bid a few levels down, you aren't really get filled, you start hitting the offer and eventually you realize you're competing with someone for the shares offered, so you take out the price level and bid on all the exchanges so that you're first on the bid at that level, then repeat until someone that can match your appetite starts to fill you on the bid? Lifting* the offer (hit bids, lift offers). And I suppose that's a stategy, albeit a somewhat simple one. Passive routing strategies differ from firm to firm and algo to algo. What is your customer going to think if you bid up a new price level only for the stock to rally completely away from it? &gt; Right, so say you need 100k shares, there are 10k offered at 9.98, 25k offered at 9.99, and 65k at 10.00, you might just enter an intermarket sweep order of 100k @ 10 limit and hope that you can get most of the shares off before everyone can cancel? I imagine there has to be a lot of bidding it up to attract sellers and then letting people take out your bids all day... \"\"Bidding it up to attract sellers\"\" sounds an awful lot like [spoofing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoofing_(finance\\)), just a heads up. Sure though, if you want to tighten a spread or create new levels with aggressive passive liquidity, that is a strategy. The same caveats as I mentioned above apply. Anyway, if market impact isn't an issue for the customer, sure, take liquidity until you're filled. Don't forget about getting good size done in the opening and closing auctions (MOO/MOC). If you're too passive you risk the market moving away from you and pissing off the customer. If you're too aggressive you risk moving the market too much and pissing off the customer.\"" }, { "docid": "322806", "title": "", "text": "\"Diversification is the only real free lunch in finance (reduction in risk without any reduction in expected returns), so clearly every good answer to your question will be \"\"yes.\"\" Diversification is good.\"\" Let's talk about many details your question solicits. Many funds are already pretty diversified. If you buy a mutual fund, you are generally already getting a large portion of the gains from diversification. There is a very large difference between the unnecessary risk in your portfolio if you only hold a couple of stocks and if you hold a mutual fund. Should you be diversified across mutual funds as well? It depends on what your funds are. Many funds, such as target-date funds, are intended to be your sole investment. If you have funds covering every major asset class, then there may not be any additional benefit to buying other funds. You probably could not have picked your \"\"favorite fund\"\" early on. As humans, we have cognitive biases that make us think we knew things early on that we did not. I'm sure at some point at the very beginning you had a positive feeling toward that fund. Today you regret not acting on it and putting all your money there. But the number of such feelings is very large and if you acted on all those, you would do a lot of crazy and harmful things. You didn't know early on which fund would do well. You could just as well have had a good feeling about a fund that subsequently did much worse than your diversified portfolio did. The advice you have had about your portfolio probably isn't based on sound finance theory. You say you have always kept your investments in line with your age. This implies that you believe the guidelines given you by your broker or financial advisor are based in finance theory. Generally speaking, they are not. They are rules of thumb that seemed good to someone but are not rigorously proven either in theory or empirics. For example the notion that you should slowly shift your investments from speculative to conservative as you age is not based on sound finance theory. It just seems good to the people who give advice on such things. Nothing particularly wrong with it, I guess, but it's not remotely on par with the general concept of being well-diversified. The latter is extremely well established and verified, both in theory and in practice. Don't confuse the concept of diversification with the specific advice you have received from your advisor. A fund averaging very good returns is not an anomaly--at least going forward it will not be. There are many thousand funds and a large distribution in their historical performance. Just by random chance, some funds will have a truly outstanding track record. Perhaps the manager really was skilled. However, very careful empirical testing has shown the following: (1) You, me, and people whose profession it is to select outperforming mutual funds are unable to reliably detect which ones will outperform, except in hindsight (2) A fund that has outperformed, even over a long horizon, is not more likely to outperform in the future. No one is stopping you from putting all your money in that fund. Depending on its investment objective, you may even have decent diversification if you do so. However, please be aware that if you move your money based on historical outperformance, you will be acting on the same cognitive bias that makes gamblers believe they are on a \"\"hot streak\"\" and \"\"can't lose.\"\" They can, and so can you. ======== Edit to answer a more specific line of questions =========== One of your questions is whether it makes sense to buy a number of mutual funds as part of your diversification strategy. This is a slightly more subtle question and I will indicate where there is uncertainty in my answer. Diversifying across asset classes. Most of the gains from diversification are available in a single fund. There is a lot of idiosyncratic risk in one or two stocks and much less in a collection of hundreds of stocks, which is what any mutual fund will hold. Still,you will probably want at least a couple of funds in your portfolio. I will list them from most important to least and I will assume the bulk of your portfolio is in a total US equity fund (or S&P500-style fund) so that you are almost completely diversified already. Risky Bonds. These are corporate, municipal, sovereign debt, and long-term treasury debt funds. There is almost certainly a good deal to be gained by having a portion of your portfolio in bonds, and normally a total market fund will not include bond exposure. Bonds fund returns are closely related to interest rate and inflation changes. They are also exposed to some market risk but it's more efficient to get that from equity. The bond market is very large, so if you did market weights you would have more in bonds than in equity. Normally people do not do this, though. Instead you can get the exposure to interest rates by holding a lesser amount in longer-term bonds, rather than more in shorter-term bonds. I don't believe in shifting your weights toward nor away from this type of bond (as opposed to equity) as you age so if you are getting that advice, know that it is not well-founded in theory. Whatever your relative weight in risky bonds when you are young is should also be your weight when you are older. International. There are probably some gains from having some exposure to international markets, although these have decreased over time as economies have become more integrated. If we followed market weights, you would actually put half your equity weight in an international fund. Because international funds are taxed differently (gains are always taxed at the short-term capital gains rate) and because they have higher management fees, most people make only a small investment to international funds, if any at all. Emerging markets International funds often ignore emerging markets in order to maintain liquidity and low fees. You can get some exposure to these markets through emerging markets funds. However, the value of public equity in emerging markets is small when compared with that of developed markets, so according to finance theory, your investment in them should be small as well. That's a theoretical, not an empirical result. Emerging market funds charge high fees as well, so this one is kind of up to your taste. I can't say whether it will work out in the future. Real estate. You may want to get exposure to real estate by buying a real-estate fund (REIT). Though, if you own a house you are already exposed to the real estate market, perhaps more than you want to be. REITs often invest in commercial real estate, which is a little different from the residential market. Small Cap. Although total market funds invest in all capitalization levels, the market is so skewed toward large firms that many total market funds don't have any significant small cap exposure. It's common for individuals to hold a small cap fund to compensate for this, but it's not actually required by investment theory. In principle, the most diversified portfolio should be market-cap weighted, so small cap should have negligible weight in your portfolio. Many people hold small cap because historically it has outperformed large cap firms of equal risk, but this trend is uncertain. Many researchers feel that the small cap \"\"premium\"\" may have been a short-term artifact in the data. Given these facts and the fact that small-cap funds charge higher fees, it may make sense to pass on this asset class. Depends on your opinion and beliefs. Value (or Growth) Funds. Half the market can be classed as \"\"value\"\", while the other half is \"\"growth.\"\" Your total market fund should have equal representation in both so there is no diversification reason to buy a special value or growth fund. Historically, value funds have outperformed over long horizons and many researchers think this will continue, but it's not exactly mandated by the theory. If you choose to skew your portfolio by buying one of these, it should be a value fund. Sector funds. There is, in general, no diversification reason to buy funds that invest in a particular sector. If you are trying to hedge your income (like trying to avoid investing in the tech sector because you work in that sector) or your costs (buying energy because you buy use a disproportionate amount of energy) I could imagine you buying one of these funds. Risk-free bonds. Funds specializing in short-term treasuries or short-term high-quality bonds of other types are basically a substitute for a savings account, CD, money market fund, or other cash equivalent. Use as appropriate but there is little diversification here per se. In short, there is some value in diversifying across asset classes, and it is open to opinion how much you should do. Less well-justified is diversifying across managers within the same asset class. There's very little if any advantage to doing that.\"" }, { "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": "414692", "title": "", "text": "I’m not an expert on the VISA/US tax or insurance, but you're making enough mistakes in terms of all the associated costs involved in owning and renting houses/apartments that this already looks potentially unwise at this stage of your investment career. Renting cheap properties/to students involves the property constantly being trashed, often being empty and requiring extremely close management (which you either have to pay someone a lot to do, or do yourself and lose other potential earning time. If doing yourself you will also make lots of mistakes in the vetting/managing/marketing process etc at first as this is a complex art in itself). Costs on this type of rental can often get as high as 25% a year depending exactly how lucky you get even if you do it all yourself, and will typically be in the 5-15% range every year once everything you have to constantly maintain, replace and redecorate is totalled up. That's all pre what you could be earning in a job etc, so if you could earn a decent clip elsewhere in the same time also have to deduct that lost potential. Send it all to third parties (so all upkeep by hired contractors, all renting by an agency) you will be lucky to even break even off ~15k a year per property rents to students. You’re not seeming to price in any transaction costs, which usually run at ~5% a time for both entrance and exit. Thats between half and one years rent gone from the ten per property on these numbers. Sell before ten is up its even more. On point three, rounding projections in house price rises to one decimal place is total gibberish – no one who actually has experience investing their own money well ever makes or relies on claims like this. No idea on Pittsburgh market but sound projections of likely asset changes is always a ranged and imprecise figure that cannot (and shouldn’t) be counted on for much. Even if it was, it’s also completely unattainable in property because you have to spend so much money on upkeep: post costs and changes in size/standard, house values generally roughly track inflation. Have a look at this chart and play around with some reasonable yearly upkeep numbers and you will see what I mean. Renting property is an absolute graveyard for inexperienced investors and if you don't know the stuff above already (and it's less than 10% of what you need to know to do this profitably vs other uses of your time), you will nearly always be better off investing the money in more passive investments like diversified bonds, REITs and Stock." }, { "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": "405212", "title": "", "text": "\"In a comment you say, if the market crashes, doesn't \"\"regress to the mean\"\" mean that I should still expect 7% over the long run? That being the case, wouldn't I benefit from intentionally unbalancing my portfolio and going all in on equities? I can can still rebalance using new savings. No. Regress to the mean just tells you that the future rate is likely to average 7%. The past rate and the future rate are entirely unconnected. Consider a series: The running average is That running average is (slowly) regressing to the long term mean without ever a member of the series being above 7%. Real markets actually go farther than this though. Real value may be increasing by 7% per year, but prices may move differently. Then market prices may revert to the real value. This happened to the S&P 500 in 2000-2002. Then the market started climbing again in 2003. In your system, you would have bought into the falling markets of 2001 and 2002. And you would have missed the positive bond returns in those years. That's about a -25% annual shift in returns on that portion of your portfolio. Since that's a third of your portfolio, you'd have lost 8% more than with the balanced strategy each of those two years. Note that in that case, the market was in an over-valued bubble. The bubble spent three years popping and overshot the actual value. So 2003 was a good year for stocks. But the three year return was still -11%. In retrospect, investors should have gone all in on bonds before 2000 and switched back to stocks for 2003. But no one knew that in 2000. People in the know actually started backing off in 1998 rather than 2000 and missed out on the tail end of the bubble. The rebalancing strategy automatically helps with your regression to the mean. It sells expensive bonds and buys cheaper stocks on average. Occasionally it sells modest priced bonds and buys over-priced stocks. But rarely enough that it is a better strategy overall. Incidentally, I would consider a 33% share high for bonds. 30% is better. And that shouldn't increase as you age (less than 30% bonds may be practical when you are young enough). Once you get close to retirement (five to ten years), start converting some of your savings to cash equivalents. The cash equivalents are guaranteed not to lose value (but might not gain much). This gives you predictable returns for your immediate expenses. Once retired, try to keep about five years of expenses in cash equivalents. Then you don't have to worry about short term market fluctuations. Spend down your buffer until the market catches back up. It's true that bonds are less volatile than stocks, but they can still have bad years. A 70%/30% mix of stocks/bonds is safer than either alone and gives almost as good of a return as stocks alone. Adding more bonds actually increases your risk unless you carefully balance them with the right stocks. And if you're doing that, you don't need simplistic rules like a 70%/30% balance.\"" }, { "docid": "469599", "title": "", "text": "The Investopedia article you linked to is a good start. Its key takeaway is that you should always consider risk-adjusted return when evaluating your portfolio. In general, investors seeking a higher level of return must face a higher likelihood of taking a loss (risk). Different types of stocks (large vs small; international vs US; different industry sectors) have different levels of historical risk and return. Not to mention stocks vs bonds or other financial instruments... So, it's key to make an apples-to-apples comparison against an appropriate benchmark. A benchmark will tell you how your portfolio is doing versus a comparable portfolio. An index, such as the S&P 500, is often used, because it tells you how your portfolio is doing compared against simply passively investing in a diversified basket of securities. First, I would start with analyzing your portfolio to understand its asset allocation. You can use a tool like the Morningstar X-Ray to do this. You may be happy with the asset allocation, or this tool may inform you to adjust your portfolio to meet your long-term goals. The next step will be to choose a benchmark. Given that you are investing primarily in non-US securities, you may want to pick a globally diversified index such as the Dow Jones Global Index. Depending on the region and stock characteristics you are investing in, you may want to pick a more specialized index, such as the ones listed here in this WSJ list. With your benchmark set, you can then see how your portfolio's returns compare to the index over time. IRR and ROI are helpful metrics in general, especially for corporate finance, but the comparison-based approach gives you a better picture of your portfolio's performance. You can still calculate your personal IRR, and make sure to include factors such as tax treatment and investment expenses that may not be fully reflected by just looking at benchmarks. Also, you can calculate the metrics listed in the Investopedia article, such as the Sharpe ratio, to give you another view on the risk-adjusted return." }, { "docid": "534333", "title": "", "text": "\"The notion that you can put product on the web and sit back and watch the money roll in is a myth, plain and simple. If you put content on the web and expect people to pay money for your products (t-shirts, etc), you have to do the work to get your stuff seen by people, and preferably the right kind of people who will buy your stuff. That means you need to know your market and provide something that they are eager to pay for. This doesn't necessarily mean buying advertising to direct traffic to your site - there are plenty of no-cost ways to bring people to your web site, but instead of costing $$ the cost is in effort and time that you have to put into it. Also keep in mind that the more participants you have in your production and fulfillment pipeline, the less you will make off every sale. Hands-off production services like Zazzle or Cafe Press do everything for you, all you have to do is provide the artwork. However, they also take all the income and pay you a rather piddling percentage of sales. You can get a larger percentage of sales if you do more of the work yourself - like handmade items sold on Etsy. But then, you're doing work. Maybe you'll get $1 for each T-Shirt you sell. If you just upload your artwork to the production service and type in some product description text into their web sales catalog, how many sales will you make in the first month? Most likely somewhere between zero and two. Why should anyone buy your shirt over the tens of thousands of other designs carried by the same production service? It's your responsibility to tell people about your stuff and send them to the site to buy it. And that means it's not a \"\"passive\"\" income. For truly passive income, invest in bank CD's, treasury bonds, or in stocks that pay dividends. The only problem with that is you have to have money to make money this way. :/\"" }, { "docid": "569849", "title": "", "text": "\"This paper by a Columbia business school professor says: The standard 60%/40% strategy outperforms a 100% bond or 100% stock strategy over the 1926-1940 period (Figure 5) and over the 1990-2011 period (Figure 6). This is based on actual market data from those periods. You can see the figures in the PDF. These are periods of 14 and 21 years, which is perhaps shorter than the amount of time money would sit in your IRA, but still a fairly long time. The author goes on with a lot of additional discussion and claims that \"\"under certain conditions, rebalancing will always outperform a buy-and-hold portfolio given sufficient time\"\". Of course, there are also many periods over which a given asset mix would underperform, so there are no guarantees here. I read your question as asking \"\"is there any data suggesting that rebalancing a diversified portfolio can outperform an all-in-one-asset-class portfolio\"\". There is some such data. However, if you're asking which investing strategy you should actually choose, you'd want to look at a lot of data on both sides. You're unlikely to find data that \"\"proves\"\" anything conclusively either way. It should also be noted that the rebalancing advantage described here (and in your question) is not specific to bonds. For instance, in theory, rebalancing between US and international stocks could show a similar advantage over an all-US or all-non-US portfolio. The paper contains a lot of additional discussion about rebalancing. It seems that your question is really about whether rebalancing a diverse portfolio is better than going all-in with one asset class, and this question is touched on throughout the paper. The author mentions that diversification and rebalancing strategies should be chosen not solely for their effect on mathematically-calculated returns, but for their match with your psychological makeup and tolerance for risk.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "503637", "title": "", "text": "I have had similar thoughts regarding alternative diversifiers for the reasons you mention, but for the most part they don't exist. Gold is often mentioned, but outside of 1972-1974 when the US went off the gold standard, it hasn't been very effective in the diversification role. Cash can help a little, but it also fails to effectively protect you in a bear market, as measured by portfolio drawdowns as well as std dev, relative to gov't bonds. There are alternative assets, reverse ETFs, etc which can fulfill a specific short term defensive role in your portfolio, but which can be very dangerous and are especially poor as a long term solution; while some people claim to use them for effective results, I haven't seen anything verifiable. I don't recommend them. Gov't bonds really do have a negative correlation to equities during periods in which equities underperform (timing is often slightly delayed), and that makes them more valuable than any other asset class as a diversifier. If you are concerned about rate increases, avoid LT gov't bond funds. Intermediate will work, but will take a few hits... short term bonds will be the safest. Personally I'm in Intermediates (30%), and willing to take the modest hit, in exchange for the overall portfolio protection they provide against an equity downturn. If the hit concerns you, Tips may provide some long term help, assuming inflation rises along with rates to some degree. I personally think Tips give up too much return when equity performance is strong, but it's a modest concern - Tips may suit you better than any other option. In general, I'm less concerned with a single asset class than with the long term performance of my total portfolio." } ]

[ { "docid": "214542", "title": "", "text": "\"Even though \"\"when the U.S. sneezes Canada catches a cold\"\", I would suggest considering a look at Canadian government bonds as both a currency hedge, and for the safety of principal — of course, in terms of CAD, not USD. We like to boast that Canada fared relatively better (PDF) during the economic crisis than many other advanced economies, and our government debt is often rated higher than U.S. government debt. That being said, as a Canadian, I am biased. For what it's worth, here's the more general strategy: Recognize that you will be accepting some currency risk (in addition to the sovereign risks) in such an approach. Consistent with your ETF approach, there do exist a class of \"\"international treasury bond\"\" ETFs, holding short-term foreign government bonds, but their holdings won't necessarily match the criteria I laid out – although they'll have wider diversification than if you invested in specific countries separately.\"" }, { "docid": "136337", "title": "", "text": "Well, all the client visits in the world aren't going to help them if their active strategies are on par with passive so if they have resigned themselves to that fate they should just call it a day and wrap up shop." }, { "docid": "569849", "title": "", "text": "\"This paper by a Columbia business school professor says: The standard 60%/40% strategy outperforms a 100% bond or 100% stock strategy over the 1926-1940 period (Figure 5) and over the 1990-2011 period (Figure 6). This is based on actual market data from those periods. You can see the figures in the PDF. These are periods of 14 and 21 years, which is perhaps shorter than the amount of time money would sit in your IRA, but still a fairly long time. The author goes on with a lot of additional discussion and claims that \"\"under certain conditions, rebalancing will always outperform a buy-and-hold portfolio given sufficient time\"\". Of course, there are also many periods over which a given asset mix would underperform, so there are no guarantees here. I read your question as asking \"\"is there any data suggesting that rebalancing a diversified portfolio can outperform an all-in-one-asset-class portfolio\"\". There is some such data. However, if you're asking which investing strategy you should actually choose, you'd want to look at a lot of data on both sides. You're unlikely to find data that \"\"proves\"\" anything conclusively either way. It should also be noted that the rebalancing advantage described here (and in your question) is not specific to bonds. For instance, in theory, rebalancing between US and international stocks could show a similar advantage over an all-US or all-non-US portfolio. The paper contains a lot of additional discussion about rebalancing. It seems that your question is really about whether rebalancing a diverse portfolio is better than going all-in with one asset class, and this question is touched on throughout the paper. The author mentions that diversification and rebalancing strategies should be chosen not solely for their effect on mathematically-calculated returns, but for their match with your psychological makeup and tolerance for risk.\"" }, { "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": "343040", "title": "", "text": "Statistically speaking active strategies **are** strictly on par with, or worse when you subtract fees, than passive strategies (regardless of how much time or money you spend investigating companies). Actively managed mutual funds are by and large just a racket where one class of rich people soaks another class of rich people plus some of the middle class. So yeah they should go ahead and call it a day. About time IMO." }, { "docid": "464297", "title": "", "text": "If you have money and may need to access it at any time, you should put it in a savings account. It won't return much interest, but it will return some and it is easily accessible. If you have all your emergency savings that you need (at least six months of income), buy index-based mutual funds. These should invest in a broad range of securities including both stocks and bonds (three dollars in stocks for every dollar in bonds) so as to be robust in the face of market shifts. You should not buy individual stocks unless you have enough money to buy a lot of them in different industries. Thirty different stocks is a minimum for a diversified portfolio, and you really should be looking at more like a hundred. There's also considerable research effort required to verify that the stocks are good buys. For most people, this is too much work. For most people, broad-based index funds are better purchases. You don't have as much upside, but you also are much less likely to find yourself holding worthless paper. If you do buy stocks, look for ones where you know something about them. For example, if you've been to a restaurant chain with a recent IPO that really wowed you with their food and service, consider investing. But do your research, so that you don't get caught buying after everyone else has already overbid the price. The time to buy is right before everyone else notices how great they are, not after. Some people benefit from joining investment clubs with others with similar incomes and goals. That way you can share some of the research duties. Also, you can get other opinions before buying, which can restrain risky impulse buys. Just to reiterate, I would recommend sticking to mutual funds and saving accounts for most investors. Only make the move into individual stocks if you're willing to be serious about it. There's considerable work involved. And don't forget diversification. You want to have stocks that benefit regardless of what the overall economy does. Some stocks should benefit from lower oil prices while others benefit from higher prices. You want to have both types so as not to be caught flat-footed when prices move. There are much more experienced people trying to guess market directions. If your strategy relies on outperforming them, it has a high chance of failure. Index-based mutual funds allow you to share the diversification burden with others. Since the market almost always goes up in the long term, a fund that mimics the market is much safer than any individual security can be. Maintaining a three to one balance in stocks to bonds also helps as they tend to move in opposite directions. I.e. stocks tend to be good when bonds are weak and vice versa." }, { "docid": "599436", "title": "", "text": "\"1. Interest rates What you should know is that the longer the \"\"term\"\" of a bond fund, the more it will be affected by interest rates. So a short-term bond fund will not be subject to large gains or losses due to rate changes, an intermediate-term bond fund will be subject to moderate gains or losses, and a long-term bond fund will be subject to the largest gains or losses. When a book or financial planner says to buy \"\"bonds\"\" with no other qualification, they almost always mean investment-grade intermediate-term bond funds (or for individual bonds, the equivalent would be a bond ladder averaging an intermediate term). If you want technical details, look at the \"\"average duration\"\" or \"\"average maturity\"\" of the bond fund; as a rough guide, if the duration is 10, then a 1% change in interest rates would be a 10% gain or loss on the fund. Another thing you can do is look at long-term (10 years or ideally longer) performance history on some short, intermediate, and long term bond index funds, and you can see how the long term funds bounced around more. Non-investment-grade bonds (aka junk bonds or high yield bonds) are more affected by factors other than interest rates, including some of the same factors (economic booms or recessions) that affect stocks. As a result, they aren't as good for diversifying a portfolio that otherwise consists of stocks. (Having stocks, investment grade bonds, and also a little bit in high-yield bonds can add diversification, though. Just don't replace your bond allocation with high-yield bonds.) A variety of \"\"complicated\"\" bonds exist (convertible bonds are an example) and these are tough to analyze. There are also \"\"floating rate\"\" bonds (bank loan funds), these have minimal interest rate sensitivity because the rate goes up to offset rate rises. These funds still have credit risks, in the credit crisis some of them lost a lot of money. 2. Diversification The purpose of diversification is risk control. Your non-bond funds will outperform in many years, but in other years (say the -37% S&P 500 drop in 2008) they may not. You will not know in advance which year you'll get. You get risk control in at least a few ways. There's also an academic Modern Portfolio Theory explanation for why you should diversify among risky assets (aka stocks), something like: for a given desired risk/return ratio, it's better to leverage up a diverse portfolio than to use a non-diverse portfolio, because risk that can be eliminated through diversification is not compensated by increased returns. The theory also goes that you should choose your diversification between risk assets and the risk-free asset according to your risk tolerance (i.e. select the highest return with tolerable risk). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_portfolio_theory for excruciating detail. The translation of the MPT stuff to practical steps is typically, put as much in stock index funds as you can tolerate over your time horizon, and put the rest in (intermediate-term investment-grade) bond index funds. That's probably what your planner is asking you to do. My personal view, which is not the standard view, is that you should take as much risk as you need to take, not as much as you think you can tolerate: http://blog.ometer.com/2010/11/10/take-risks-in-life-for-savings-choose-a-balanced-fund/ But almost everyone else will say to do the 80/20 if you have decades to retirement and feel you can tolerate the risk, so my view that 60/40 is the max desirable allocation to stocks is not mainstream. Your planner's 80/20 advice is the standard advice. Before doing 100% stocks I'd give you at least a couple cautions: See also:\"" }, { "docid": "585494", "title": "", "text": "\"Pay off the credit cards. From now on, pay off the credit cards monthly. Under no circumstances should you borrow money. You have net worth but no external income. Borrowing is useless to you. $200,000 in two bank accounts, because if one bank collapses, you want to have a spare while you wait for the government to pay off the guarantee. Keep $50,000 in checking and another $50k in savings. The remainder put into CDs. Don't expect interest income beyond inflation. Real interest rates (after inflation) are often slightly negative. People ask why you might keep money in the bank rather than stocks/bonds. The problem is that stocks/bonds don't always maintain their value, much less go up. The bank money won't gain, but it won't suddenly lose half its value either. It can easily take five years after a stock market crash for the market to recover. You don't want to be withdrawing from losses. Some people have suggested more bonds and fewer stocks. But putting some of the money in the bank is better than bonds. Bonds sometimes lose money, like stocks. Instead, park some of the money in the bank and pick a more aggressive stock/bond mixture. That way you're never desperate for money, and you can survive market dips. And the stock/bond part of the investment will return more at 70/30 than 60/40. $700,000 in stock mutual funds. $300,000 in bond mutual funds. Look for broad indexes rather than high returns. You need this to grow by the inflation rate just to keep even. That's $20,000 to $30,000 a year. Keep the balance between 70/30 and 75/25. You can move half the excess beyond inflation to your bank accounts. That's the money you have to spend each year. Don't withdraw money if you aren't keeping up with inflation. Don't try to time the market. Much better informed people with better resources will be trying to do that and failing. Play the odds instead. Keep to a consistent strategy and let the market come back to you. If you chase it, you are likely to lose money. If you don't spend money this year, you can save it for next year. Anything beyond $200,000 in the bank accounts is available for spending. In an emergency you may have to draw down the $200,000. Be careful. It's not as big a cushion as it seems, because you don't have an external income to replace it. I live in southern California but would like to move overseas after establishing stable investments. I am not the type of person that would invest in McDonald's, but would consider other less evil franchises (maybe?). These are contradictory goals, as stated. A franchise (meaning a local business of a national brand) is not a \"\"stable investment\"\". A franchise is something that you actively manage. At minimum, you have to hire someone to run the franchise. And as a general rule, they aren't as turnkey as they promise. How do you pick a good manager? How will you tell if they know how the business works? Particularly if you don't know. How will you tell that they are honest and won't just embezzle your money? Or more honestly, give you too much of the business revenues such that the business is not sustainable? Or spend so much on the business that you can't recover it as revenue? Some have suggested that you meant brand or stock rather than franchise. If so, you can ignore the last few paragraphs. I would be careful about making moral judgments about companies. McDonald's pays its workers too little. Google invades privacy. Exxon is bad for the environment. Chase collects fees from people desperate for money. Tesla relies on government subsidies. Every successful company has some way in which it can be considered \"\"evil\"\". And unsuccessful companies are evil in that they go out of business, leaving workers, customers, and investors (i.e. you!) in the lurch. Regardless, you should invest in broad index funds rather than individual stocks. If college is out of the question, then so should be stock investing. It's at least as much work and needs to be maintained. In terms of living overseas, dip your toe in first. Rent a small place for a few months. Find out how much it costs to live there. Remember to leave money for bigger expenses. You should be able to live on $20,000 or $25,000 a year now. Then you can plan on spending $35,000 a year to do it for real (including odd expenses that don't happen every month). Make sure that you have health insurance arranged. Eventually you may buy a place. If you can find one that you can afford for something like $100,000. Note that $100,000 would be low in California but sufficient even in many places in the US. Think rural, like the South or Midwest. And of course that would be more money in many countries in South America, Africa, or southern Asia. Even southern and eastern Europe might be possible. You might even pay a bit more and rent part of the property. In the US, this would be a duplex or a bed and breakfast. They may use different terms elsewhere. Given your health, do you need a maid/cook? That would lean towards something like a bed and breakfast, where the same person can clean for both you and the guests. Same with cooking, although that might be a second person (or more). Hire a bookkeeper/accountant first, as you'll want help evaluating potential purchases. Keep the business small enough that you can actively monitor it. Part of the problem here is that a million dollars sounds like a lot of money but isn't. You aren't rich. This is about bare minimum for surviving with a middle class lifestyle in the United States and other first world countries. You can't live like a tourist. It's true that many places overseas are cheaper. But many aren't (including much of Europe, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, etc.). And the ones that aren't may surprise you. And you also may find that some of the things that you personally want or need to buy are expensive elsewhere. Dabble first and commit slowly; be sure first. Include rarer things like travel in your expenses. Long term, there will be currency rate worries overseas. If you move permanently, you should certainly move your bank accounts there relatively soon (perhaps keep part of one in the US for emergencies that may bring you back). And move your investments as well. Your return may actually improve, although some of that is likely to be eaten up by inflation. A 10% return in a country with 12% inflation is a negative real return. Try to balance your investments by where your money gets spent. If you are eating imported food, put some of the investment in the place from which you are importing. That way, if exchange rates push your food costs up, they will likely increase your investments at the same time. If you are buying stuff online from US vendors and having it shipped to you, keep some of your investments in the US for the same reason. Make currency fluctuations work with you rather than against you. I don't know what your circumstances are in terms of health. If you can work, you probably should. Given twenty years, your million could grow to enough to live off securely. As is, you would be in trouble with another stock market crash. You'd have to live off the bank account money while you waited for your stocks and bonds to recover.\"" }, { "docid": "214710", "title": "", "text": "\"I'll answer your question, but first a comment about your intended strategy. Buying government bonds in a retirement account is probably not a good idea. Government bonds (generally) are tax advantaged themselves, so they offer a lower interest rate than other types of bonds. At no tax or reduced tax, many people will accept the lower interest rate because their effective return may be similar or better depending, for example, on their own marginal tax rate. In a tax-advantaged retirement account, however, you'll be getting the lower interest without any additional benefit because that account itself is already tax-advantaged. (Buying bonds generally may be a good idea or not - I won't comment on that - but choose a different category of bonds.) For the general question about the relationship between the Fed rate and the bond rate, they are positively correlated. There's not direct causal relationship in the sense that the Fed is not setting the bond rate directly, but other interest bearing investment options are tied to the Fed rate and many of those interest-bearing options compete for the same investor dollars as the bonds that you're reviewing. That's at a whole market level. Individual bonds, however, may not be so tightly coupled since the creditworthiness of the issuing entity matters a lot too, so it could be that \"\"bond rates\"\" generally are going up but some specific bonds are going down based on something happening with the issuer, just like the stock market might be generally going up even as specific stocks are dropping. Also keep in mind that many bonds trade as securities on a secondary market much like stocks. So I've talked about the bond rate. The price of the bonds themselves on the secondary market generally move opposite to the rate. The reason is that, for example, if you buy a bond at less than face value, you're getting an effective interest rate that's higher because you get the same sized incremental payments of interest but put less money into the investment. And vice versa.\"" }, { "docid": "155242", "title": "", "text": "You have to look at the market conditions and make decisions based on them. Ideally, you may want to have 30% of your portfolio in bonds. But from a practical point of view, it's probably not so smart to invest in bond funds right at this moment given the interest rate market. Styles of funds tend to go into and out of style. I personally do asset allocation two ways in my 457 plan (like a 401k for government workers): In my IRA, I invest in a portfolio of 5-6 stocks. The approach you take is dependent on what you are able to put into it. I invest about 10 hours a week into investment related research. If you can't do that, you want a strategy that is simpler -- but you still need to be cognizant of market conditions." }, { "docid": "815", "title": "", "text": "\"I used to work for one of the three ratings agencies. Awhile ago. First: There are lots of different ratings. The bulk of ratings are for corporate debt and public finance. So senior debentures (fixed income) and General Obligations e.g. tax-free muni bonds, respectively. Ratings agencies are NOT paid by the investment banks, they are paid by the corporations or city/ state that is issuing debt. The investment banks are the syndicate that pulls the transaction together and brings it to market. For mortgage-backed securities, collateralized debt CDO-CLO's, all of which are fancy structured securitizations, well, that is a different matter! Those transactions are the ones where there is an inappropriately close tie between the investment bankers and ratings agencies. And those were the ratings that blew out and caused problems. Ratings agencies continued to do a decent job with what WAS their traditional business, corporate and municipal bond ratings, as far as I know. What khajja said was 100% correct: S&amp;P's fees were paid by investors, the people who were purchasing the bonds, until about 50 years ago. Around the same time that McGraw-Hill purchased S&amp;P, in 1966, they departed from that model, and started charging the bond issuers for ratings. I don't know if that decision was driven by McGraw-Hill or not, though. One more thing: Not all credit ratings agencies are paid by the issuers. One of the 10 NRSRO's (a designation given by the S.E.C.) is Egan-Jones. Their revenue comes from the investors, bond purchasers, not the companies issuing bonds, unlike the S&amp;P/ Fitch/ Moody's \"\"business model\"\". So there is an alternative, which I consider hopeful and reason not to totally despair. EDIT: What xcrunna19 mentions is also totally accurate. The part about Nouriel Roubini (who is a professor at N.Y.U. or Columbia or such and a sensible though slightly high strung sort) is consistent with my impression. As for whether it would require government action to implement the changes advocated by Roubini, yes, I guess it would, but I don't know if the government would do that. It would be better if the credit ratings agencies would find their own way to a different, less conflicted payment-incentive model. Keep in mind too that many of the provisions of Dodd-Frank have removed the existing regulatory requirements for credit ratings on bonds and other securities. This is the scary part though: There isn't anything to replace the credit ratings agencies, not at the moment, as far as I can tell! Eventually the government is supposed to come up with an alternative, but that hasn't happened yet. Which is better: Not requiring ratings at all, or the past situation of sometimes inflated ratings, which imparted a false sense of confidence? I don't know.\"" }, { "docid": "105666", "title": "", "text": "\"First, congratulations on choosing to invest in low cost passively managed plans. If you choose any one of these options and stick with it, you will already be well ahead of most individual investors. Almost all plans will allow you to re-balance between asset classes. With some companies, sales agents will encourage you to sell your overweighted assets and buy underweighted assets as this generates brokerage commissions for them, but when you only need to make minor adjustments, you can simply change the allocation of the new money going into your account until you are back to your target weights. Most plans will let you do this for free, and in general, you will only need to do this every few years at most. I don't see much reason for you to be in the Target funds. The main feature of these plans is that they gradually shift you to a more conservative asset allocation over time, and are designed to prevent people who are close to retirement from being too aggressive and risking a major loss just before retirement. It's very likely that at your age, most plans will have very similar recommendations for your allocation, with equities at 80% or more, and this is unlikely to change for the next few decades. The main benefits of betterment seems to be simplicity and ease of use, but there is one concern I would have for you with betterment. Precisely because it is so easy to tweak your allocation, I'm concerned that you might hurt your long-term results by reacting to short-term market conditions: I know I said I wanted a hands off account, but what if the stock market crashes and I want to allocate more to bonds??? One of the biggest reasons that stock returns are better than bond returns on average is that you are being paid to accept additional risk, and living with significant ups and downs is part of what it means to be in the stock market. If you are tempted to take money out of an asset class when it has been \"\"losing/feels dangerous\"\" and put more in when it is \"\"winning/feels safe\"\", my concerns is that you will end up buying high and selling low. I'd recommend taking a look at this article on the emotional cycle of investing. My point is simply that it's very likely that if you are moving money in and out of stocks based on volatility, you're much less likely to get the full market return over the long term, and might be better off putting more weight in asset classes with lower volatility. Either way, I'd recommend taking one or more risk tolerance assessments online and making sure you're committed to sticking with a long-term plan that doesn't involve more risk than you can really live with. I tend to lean toward Vanguard Life Strategy simply because Vanguard as a company has been around longer, but betterment does seem very accessible to a new investor. Best of luck with your decision!\"" }, { "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": "513016", "title": "", "text": "\"There's no such thing as true \"\"passive income.\"\" You are being paid the risk free rate to delay consumption (i.e., the super low rate you are getting on savings accounts and CDs) and a higher rate to bear risk. You will not find truly risk-free investments that earn more than the types of investments you have been looking at...most likely you will not keep up with inflation in risk-free investments. For a person who is very risk averse but wants to make a little more money than the risk-free rate, the solution is not to invest completely in slightly risky things. Instead the best thing you can do is invest partially in a fully diversified portfolio. A diversified portfolio (containing stocks, bonds, etc) will earn you the most return for the given amount of risk. If you want very little risk, put very little in that portfolio and keep the rest in your CDs. Put 90% of your money in a CD or something and the other 10% in stocks/bonds. Or choose a different percentage. You can also buy real assets, like real estate, but you will find yourself taking a different type of risk and doing a different type of work with those assets.\"" }, { "docid": "44574", "title": "", "text": "\"I agree with Grade 'Eh' Bacon's answer, but there are a couple of ideas that are relevant to your particular situation: If I were you, I would invest at least half of the cash in growth ETFs because you're young enough that market variability doesn't affect you and long term growth is important. The rest should be invested in safer investments (value and dividend ETFs, bonds, cash) so that you have something to live off in the near term. You said you wanted to invest ethically. The keyword to search is \"\"socially responsible ETFs\"\". There are many, and if this is important to you, you'll have to read their prospectus to find one that matches your ethics. Since you're American, the way I understand it, you need to file taxes on income; selling stocks at a gain is income. You want to make sure that as your stocks appreciate, you sell some every year and immediately rebuy them so that you pay a small tax bill every year rather than one huge tax bill 20 years from now. Claiming about $20600 of capital gains every year would be tax free assuming you are not earning any other money. I would claim a bit more in years where you make a lot. You can mitigate your long term capital gains tax exposure by opening a Roth IRA and maxing that out. Capital gains in the Roth IRA are not taxable. Even if you don't have income from working, you can have some income if you invest in stocks that pay dividends, which would allow you to contribute to a Roth IRA. You should figure where you're going to be living because you will want to minimize the currency risk of having your money in USD while you're living abroad. If the exchange rate were to change by a lot, you might find yourself a lot poorer. There are various hedging strategies, but the easiest one is to invest some of your money in securities of the country you'll be living in. You should look into how you'll be converting money into the foreign currency. There are sometimes way of minimizing the spread when converting large amounts of money, e.g., Norbert's gambit. Shaving off 1.5% when exchanging $100k saves $1500.\"" }, { "docid": "534333", "title": "", "text": "\"The notion that you can put product on the web and sit back and watch the money roll in is a myth, plain and simple. If you put content on the web and expect people to pay money for your products (t-shirts, etc), you have to do the work to get your stuff seen by people, and preferably the right kind of people who will buy your stuff. That means you need to know your market and provide something that they are eager to pay for. This doesn't necessarily mean buying advertising to direct traffic to your site - there are plenty of no-cost ways to bring people to your web site, but instead of costing $$ the cost is in effort and time that you have to put into it. Also keep in mind that the more participants you have in your production and fulfillment pipeline, the less you will make off every sale. Hands-off production services like Zazzle or Cafe Press do everything for you, all you have to do is provide the artwork. However, they also take all the income and pay you a rather piddling percentage of sales. You can get a larger percentage of sales if you do more of the work yourself - like handmade items sold on Etsy. But then, you're doing work. Maybe you'll get $1 for each T-Shirt you sell. If you just upload your artwork to the production service and type in some product description text into their web sales catalog, how many sales will you make in the first month? Most likely somewhere between zero and two. Why should anyone buy your shirt over the tens of thousands of other designs carried by the same production service? It's your responsibility to tell people about your stuff and send them to the site to buy it. And that means it's not a \"\"passive\"\" income. For truly passive income, invest in bank CD's, treasury bonds, or in stocks that pay dividends. The only problem with that is you have to have money to make money this way. :/\"" }, { "docid": "136515", "title": "", "text": "\"Bonds still definitely have a place in many passive portfolios. While it is true that interest rates have been unusually low, yields on reasonable passive bond exposures are still around 2-4%. This is significantly better than both recent past inflation and expected inflation both of which are near zero. This is reasonable if not great return, but Bonds continue to have other nice properties like relatively low risk and diversification of stock portfolios (the \"\"offset[ing] losses\"\" you mention in the OP). So to say that bonds are \"\"no longer a good idea\"\" is certainly not correct. One could say bonds may no longer be a good idea for some people that have a particularly high risk tolerance and very high return requirements. However, to some extent, that has always been true. It is worth remembering also that there is some compelling evidence that global growth is starting to broadly slow down and many people believe that future stock returns and, in general, returns on all investments will be lower. This is much much harder to estimate than bond returns though. Depending on who you believe, bond returns may actually look relatively better than the have in the past. Edit in response to comment: Corporate bond correlation with stocks is positive but generally not very strong (except for high-yield junk bonds) so while they don't offset stock volatility (negative correlation) they do help diversify a stock portfolio. Government bonds have essentially zero correlation so they don't really offset volatility as much as just not add any. Negative correlation assets are generally called insurance and you tend to have to pay for them. So there is no free lunch here. Assets that reduce risk cost money, assets that add little risk give less return and assets that are more risky tend to give more return in the long run but you can feel the pain. The mix that is right for you depends on a lot of things, but for many people that mix involves some corporate and government bonds.\"" }, { "docid": "464264", "title": "", "text": "Dollar cost averaging is a great strategy to use for investment vehicles where you can't invest it in a lump sum. A 401K is perfect for this. You take a specific amount out of each paycheck and invest it either in a single fund, or multiple funds, or some programs let you invest it in a brokerage account so you can invest in virtually any mutual fund or stock. With annual or semi-annual re-balancing of your investments dollar cost averaging is the way to invest in these programs. If you have a lump sum to invest, then dollar cost averaging is not the best way to invest. Imagine you want to invest 10K and you want to be 50% bonds and 50% stocks. Under dollar cost averaging you would take months to move the money from 100% cash to 50/50 bonds/stocks. While you are slowly moving towards the allocation you want, you will spend months not in the allocation you want. You will spend way too long in the heavy cash position you were trying to change. The problem works the other way also. Somebody trying to switch from stocks to gold a few years ago, would not have wanted to stay in limbo for months. Obviously day traders don't use dollar cost averaging. If you will will be a frequent trader, DCA is not the way to go. No particular stock type is better for DCA. It is dependent on how long you plan on keeping the investment, and if you will be working with a lump sum or not. EDIT: There have be comments regarding DCA and 401Ks. When experts discuss why people should invest via a 401K, they mention DCA as a plus along with the company match. Many participants walk away with the belief that DCA is the BEST strategy. Many articles have been written about how to invest an inheritance or tax refund, many people want to use DCA because they believe that it is good. In fact in the last few years the experts have begun to discourage ever using DCA unless there is no other way." }, { "docid": "478711", "title": "", "text": "As I tell all my clients... remember WHY you are investing in the first. Make a plan and stick to it. Find a strategy and perfect it. A profit is not a profit until you take it. the same goes with a loss. You never loose till you sell for less than what you paid. Stop jumping for one market to the next, find one strategy that works for you. Making money in the stock market is easy when you perfect your trading strategy. As for your questions: Precious metal... Buying or selling look for the trends and time frame for your desired holdings. Foreign investments... They have problem in their economy just as we do, if you know someone that specializes in that... good for you. Bonds and CD are not investments in my opinion... I look at them as parking lots for your cash. At this moment in time with the devaluation of the US dollar and inflation both killing any returns even the best bonds are giving out I see no point in them at this time. There are so many ways to easily and safely make money here in our stock market why look elsewhere. Find a strategy and perfect it, make a plan and stick to it. As for me I love Dividend Capturing and Dividend Stocks, some of these companies have been paying out dividends for decades. Some have been increasing their payouts to their investors since Kennedy was in office." } ]

[ { "docid": "6666", "title": "", "text": "People have asked a lot of good questions about your broader situation, tolerance for risk, etc, but I'm going to say the one-size-fits-most answer is: split some of your monthly savings (half?) into the VEU Vanguard FTSE All-World ex-US ETF and some into VTI Vanguard Total Stock Market ETF. This can be as automatic and hassle-free as the money market deposit and gives a possibility of getting a better return, with low costs and low avoidable risk." } ]

[ { "docid": "522718", "title": "", "text": "\"&gt; Also, if accounting suddenlly decides to hire a bunch of new employees why should the cost for the computers come out of IT's budget? What does it even mean for something \"\"to come out of IT's budget?\"\" As far as I can tell, what it means is that you don't understand the difference between a planning tool and a t-account. &gt; As long as IT's budget is subserviant to the whims of other departments you can't really call it a budget at all. Rather, it is just a pool of money that anyone can dip in to. Budgets aren't pools of money at all, they're planning tools. Actual pools of money are t-accounts. I am nearly 100% certain that your IT department doesn't not have its own t-account, though once the distinction between budgets and t-accounts are so thoroughly confused that you are commonly saying things \"\"come out of our budget,\"\" the next logical step can appear to be inter-departmental charge-backs. The reality is that business expenses are driven by growth and constrained by cash flow. Managers must learn how to produce budgets that anticipate growth, so that cash flow can be managed by the accountants, and so that executives can make decisions about priorities. Doing inter-department charge-backs is a way of doing this in an organization whose relationships are so fucked up that you can't do it by actually talking to each other. Have fun with that.\"" }, { "docid": "597661", "title": "", "text": "I think what he was confused about is why EV is used if a company like Apple is going to have an EV much less than its market cap. His point was, if EV was the only way to measure the value of a firm, a company that hordes cash like APPL should be more valuable than its EV indicates. I think he failed to take into account that hording cash means the company isn't reinvesting in itself like it should, and therefore, at the time of a transaction, when the cash exits the balance sheet, you get significantly less in terms of remaining value. I can definitely see why people might get confused on EV though." }, { "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": "67322", "title": "", "text": "In a word: budgeting. In order to have money left over at the end of the month, you need to be intentional about how you spend it. That is all a budget is: a plan for spending your money. Few people have the discipline and abundance of income necessary to just wing it and not overspend. By making a plan at home ahead of time, you can decide how much you will spend on food, entertainment, etc, and ensure you have enough money left over for things like rent/mortgage and utility bills, and still have enough for longer-term savings goals like a car purchase or retirement. If you don't have a plan, it's simply not reasonable to expect yourself to know if you have enough money for a Venti cup as you drive past the Starbucks. A good plan will allow you to spend on things that are important to you while ensuring that you have enough to meet your obligations and long-term goals. Another thing a budget will do for you is highlight where your problem is. If your problem is that you are spending too much money on luxuries, the budget will show you that. It might also reveal to you that your rent is too high, or your energy consumption is too great. On the other hand, you might realize after budgeting that your spending is reasonable, but your income is too low. In that case, you should focus on spending more of your time working or looking for a better paying job." }, { "docid": "553192", "title": "", "text": "Your analogy is a poor representation of my point. My point being that finding success in life is hard, no matter what you want to do. An idea that is consistent in all ideologies. Well, it is solely controlled by s/d, kinda. The things you listed all affect s/d which controls the market. Of course there will always be waves of new graduates to fill min wage jobs, because most everyone can do them, that was kinda my point. It's not so much the company controlling demand as it is the company adjusting to it, if there are an abundance of min wage jobs relative to the amount of workers, they wouldn't be min wage jobs. This premise of s/d is in no way unique to capitalism. And even the fluctuations in compensation to mirror your contribution and skills isn't unique to capitalism. Sure capitalism favors those with more capital, which is the point. In order to acquire capital you need to do productive things, which (idealy) are productive to some degree to society as a whole. So, acquire more capital- SEE IT'S SO EASY!" }, { "docid": "3926", "title": "", "text": "&gt;I appreciate the detailed responses, truthfully however I feel like at least half of your points are either just argumentative for its sake alone, display a deep lack of understanding of unions, collective bargaining, and the histories of both, or ignore pragmatism and cling to an uncompromising and ultimately self-defeating ideology. I feel the same way about your arguments, but I still try to respond to the content of your arguments rather than my assumptions about them. &gt;The law forces the two parties to sit at a table. The law forces the two parties to discuss a few core things, like wages. The law should not force any party to sit at any table. That violates a party's contract liberty. &gt;The idea is since these worker-employer disputes exist naturally, making them at least sit at a table together and talking is helpful in avoiding ego and testosterone fueled disruptions where no one benefits. That's nice that you think you know what's better for other people than they do for themselves, but that doesn't give you a right to force them to any table. A right to contract freedom means the right to dismiss any offer or refuse to even negotiate with a party. &gt;If this you see this as a violation of one's liberty, I really don't know what to say to that. Then I guess we have fundamentally different ideas about what is freedom and what is not. You seem to think that forcing someone to negotiate with a party, against their will, is not a violation of any of their rights. &gt;I'm not saying I don't believe you, but citation needed. Sorry I don't have time to dig up citations now. If I have time later, I'd be happy to do so. All I could find now is an inverse correlation between the state of a country's credit market and the rate of child labor: http://www.fordschool.umich.edu/rsie/workingpapers/Papers476-500/r486.pdf &gt;&gt;There is an abundance of indirect empirical evidence, discussed below, concerning the role of credit constraints and educational attainment. However, Dehejia and Gatti (2002) test the hypothesis directly. They estimate a basic model of child labor determination for a panel of 172 countries for the years 1950-60, 1970, 1980, and 1995. &gt;&gt;The credit-constraint variable is proxied by the share in GDP of private credit issued by 10 deposit-money banks. They find that a one standard deviation increase in the share of credit in GDP is associated with a 10 percent standard deviation decrease in child labor. They conclude that families with access to credit are considerably less likely to put children to work during a period of economic volatility than parents without access to credit. &gt;Wouldn't educating children first lead to an increase in productivity? Also, what if the owners of the means of production, only a few in an given area, have incomes 100x greater than the workers? If there are efficient financial markets that allow parents to borrow money against the expected future increase in earnings from their children being educated, then yes. In less developed economies, these markets have not developed, and the choice is often between death and child labor. &gt;They seem to be producing enough wealth to support themselves, only they're not the beneficiaries. Studies have shown that by and large, parents act altruistically towards their children, and only put them to work if it is in the children's best interest. e.g. page 32: http://www.econ.puc-rio.br/pdf/seminario/2003/manacorda.pdf &gt;&gt;Taking together the evidence so far presented, it appears that the data are consistent with a model where the returns from child labor do not accrue to the parents. Parents redistribute entirely these returns to their children in the form of lower labor supply and higher schooling (plus possibly increased consumption). 47 Laws against child labor therefore will generally do more harm than good. &gt;What's the solution here? The solution is to let the process of economic development run its course until child labor is not necessary. &gt;This is typical anti-union propaganda, and it's funny you pull it out since it ignores your own ideology. What interest would a union have in destroying the very industry it needs to exist? Answer: none. A union is not a self-interested party. A union represents self-interested parties, who are not directly affected by the destruction of their industry 30 years into the future, since they would have retired by then. Many of the laws and union-backed agreements that ended up destroying many of America's industries took decades to have their full effect. It wasn't a case of a law being passed, and the next year, the industry going bankrupt. &gt;I have no idea how one could come to this conclusion. I can only assume it stems from the same old idea that employers are always paying out the most that they can afford. Why should employers pay out the most they can afford, and why should laws be passed to force employers to do so? The only reason people invest is to profit. If all profits had to be paid to employees, there would be no incentive to invest, and therefore no increase in capital/productivity. &gt;I happen to have first-hand knowledge that it's false however - when my workplace unionized recently, one of around a dozen locations nationally and the only one to organize, the company responded by increasing wages and benefits to all locations. Have any locations closed? No. Has anyone been laid off? No. Is the company still mad profitable? Yes. A general effect happens gradually over a course of decades, and happens in the aggregate, not in every case. It will not be apparent in the short-run, and will not be manifested in every case. In other words, that unionization did not result in immediate bankruptcy of your industry does not prove that unionization does not have a negative effect over the average long term performance of industries and average long term increase in wages." }, { "docid": "121233", "title": "", "text": "A few things for you to consider: (1) Yes, if your average daily balance is lower [because you paid it off when you received your paycheck, then slowly used the card for the remainder of the month, until it's at the same balance next paycheck, vs just having the card at a flat $5k the whole month], you will accrue less interest, thereby allowing you to pay it off faster by reducing your interest payments. BUT: (2) Carrying a balance on your credit card is a big financial no-no, and eliminating it should be an immediate priority for you. If there is anything you can do (step 1: budget your expenses and then track actuals to see where you stand - step 2: see what expenses you can reduce - step 3: see if you can increase your income - step 4: rebudget with your new goals, determine how long it would take to pay off the card, possibly considering consolidating/refinancing your debt at a lower interest rate) to pay it off faster, then do it. However (3) If you have absolutely zero cash on hand, then taking your paycheck and immediately paying down your credit card, and then relying on that card to pay for things until the next paycheck, puts you at risk of your available credit changing. ie: if you have 5k on the card, and pay it down to 4.25k, then what happens to you if the credit card company [because they view you as a risk, or for whatever other reason - including a temporary hold because of fraudulent activity at no fault of your own] reduces your available credit to 4.5k? Suddenly, you will only have $250 in available spending power until your next paycheck. Therefore it may be wise for you to hold onto some amount of cash that you do not touch except for emergencies, even before you pay off your credit card. I really recommend you search this site for other questions related to budgeting and credit cards. There are many good answers, and some of what I've said above is just opinion, so you shouldn't just take my word for it, you should try to become familiar with these topics yourself. Good luck!" }, { "docid": "144002", "title": "", "text": "1) The risks are that you investing in financial markets and therefore should be prepared for volatility in the value of your holdings. 2) You should only ever invest in financial markets with capital that you can reasonably afford to put aside and not touch for 5-10 years (as an investor not a trader). Even then you should be prepared to write this capital off completely. No one can offer you a guarantee of what will happen in the future, only speculation from what has happened in the past. 3) Don't invest. It is simple. Keep your money in cash. However this is not without its risks. Interest rates rarely keep up with inflation so the spending power of cash investments quickly diminishes in real terms over time. So what to do? Extended your time horizon as you have mentioned to say 30 years, reinvest all dividends as these have been proven to make up the bulk of long term returns and drip feed your money into these markets over time. This will benefit you from what is known in as 'dollar cost averaging' and will negate the need for you to time the market." }, { "docid": "409717", "title": "", "text": "I have to ask: At what point do people take into account their own financial responsibility when it comes to these fees? Don't get me wrong, I've been in that overdraft fee loop before and it was brutal so I took my business else where... what I didn't realize at the time was that I did exactly what the bank wanted me to do. Either pay up for the bank forwarding money on my behalf, or gtfo. Banks aren't obligated to do shit with our pennies. By asking them to hold on to our cash, they provide a service including all the attached fine print. Trickery is obviously foul play, but so is constantly over-drawing an account. One or two overdraws should be red flag enough that you're not paying attention to your money. But this isn't the case for our culture. We get penalized then act like victims." }, { "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": "543812", "title": "", "text": "\"In India, Can I write a multi-city cheque to myself (Self cheque) and present to non-home branch to withdraw money? If yes, Can bank deny this transaction? Yes you can. There are limitations on the amount advised from time to time. What is \"\"genuine transactions / bonafide remittances\"\"? The multi-city cheque were created / issued to ease the clearing time. Previously outstation cheques would take max of 1 month by law. having a Multi-City cheque reduces this to max of 3 days. So what the clause says is one should use MCC to make genuine payments for parties outside your city. These should not be used as conduits for money laundering activities. No cash payment to third parties It means cash payment is not given to others except to account holder in non-home branch. A 3rd party can withdraw from home branch. Suppose someone gave me a cheque and I don't have an account in that bank (or I am out of town, so I go to a non-home branch), how can I get the money in cash? You can't. Generally I have seen that this can be en-cashed in the same city and not necessarily the same branch. However its been sometime when I have done this. Best is deposit this into your Bank or have payer initiate an IMPS/NEFT transfer.\"" }, { "docid": "229617", "title": "", "text": "Women entered the work force en mass. And, with twice as many potential employees the cost of labor decreased. That is, of course, the non-PC version and it began earlier than the 80s but it's essentially correct--labor like any other commodity increases in value relative to its scarcity. If all the women (or all the men, or all of any sizeable group) left the labor market the price of labor would begin to increase as companies bid up the price they were willing to pay for each employee. With today's level of globalization this becomes a much more complicated equation--do local wages rise or do jobs migrate to abundant (and cheap) labor? But, it's the same idea." }, { "docid": "368247", "title": "", "text": "I would like to post a followup after almost a quarter. littleadv's advice was very good, and in retrospect exactly what I should have done to begin with. Qualifying for a secured credit card is no issue for people with blank credit history, or perhaps for anyone without any negative entries in their credit history. Perhaps, cash secured loans are only useful for those who really have so bad a credit history that they do not qualify for any other secured credit, but I am not sure. Right now, I have four cash secured credit cards and planning to maintain a 20% utilization ratio across all of them. Perhaps I should update this answer in 1.5 years!" }, { "docid": "215180", "title": "", "text": "First and foremost you should do more research on credit cards and what everything means. As expressed by others the balance transfer fee is not what you think it is. Credit cards can be great, they can also quickly erode your credit score and your standing. So understanding the basics is VERY important. The credit card that is right for you should have the following criteria. The first two points should be straight forward, you should not have to pay a CC company for the privilege to use their card. They should pay you through perks and rewards. It should also be a CC that can be used for what you need it for. If you travel internationally a lot and the CC you choose only works within the US then what good is it? The third point is where you need to ask yourself what you do a lot and if a CC can offer rewards through travel miles, or cash back or other bonuses based on your lifestyle. The transfer fee is not what you think it is, people who already are carrying debt on another credit card and would like to transfer that debt to another credit card would be interested in finding a fee or a low %. People do this to get a batter rate or to get away from a bad credit card. If one charges 28% and another charges 13%, well it makes sense to transfer existing debt over to the 13% provided they don't crush you on fees. Since you have no credit card debt (assumption based on the fact you want to build your credit), you should ask yourself for what purpose and how often do you plan to use the credit card. Would this card be just for emergencies, and wont be used on daily purchases then a credit card that offers 3% cash back on gasoline purchases is not for you. If you however love to travel and plan to use your credit card for a lot of purchases OR have a few large purchases (insurance, tuition etc.) then get a credit card that provides rewards like miles. It really comes down to you and your situation. There are numerous websites dedicated to the best credit card for any situation. The final thing I will say is what I mentioned at the beginning, its important, CC's can be a tool to establish and improve your credit worthiness, they can also be a tool to destroy your credit worthiness, so be careful and make smart choices on what you use your card for. A credit score is like a mountain, it requires a slow and steady discipline to reach the top, but one misstep and that credit score can tumble quickly." }, { "docid": "115817", "title": "", "text": "All value given to products is subjective and is different from person to person. It can also vary for the same person from year to year, month to month, day to day, or even hour to hour as a person analyzes different products and prices to determine which imparts the most value to him or her at a given point in time. In regards to losing money in your investment accounts. This reminds of a book I read on Jesse Livermore. Jesse was a famous stock broker who made millions (in the 1920's so he would be a billionaire in today's money) in the stock market multiple times. Jesse felt like you - he felt like after a while the losses on paper did not seem to concern him as much as he thought it should. He thought it was due to the investment accounts being simply being numbers on papers and not cold, hard cash. So what did Jesse do to remove the abstract nature of investment accounts? From here: Livermore always sold out all his positions at the end of every year and had the cash deposited in his account at the Chase Manhattan Bank. Then he would arrange with the bank to have the money, in cash, in the bank’s vault in chests. “There was a desk, a chair, a cot and an easy chair in the middle of the cash.” On the occasion described in 1923, there was $50 million in cash. In the corner was a fridge with food, enough for a few days. There was lighting installed. Then, like Scrooge McDuck, Livermore would have himself locked in the vault with his cash. He would stay a couple of days and “review his year from every aspect.” After his stay was over, he would fill his pockets with cash and go on a shopping spree. He would also take a vacation and not re-enter the market until February. But unlike Scrooge McDuck, this was not the act of a miser, explains Smitten. Livermore lived a world of paper transactions all year long. He believed that “by the end of the year he had lost his perception of what the paper slips really represented, cash money and ultimately power.” He “needed to touch the money and feel the power of cash.” It made him re-appraise his stock and commodity positions. Imagine the $60,000 from your investment account sitting on your kitchen table. Imagine seeing $1,000 dumped into the trash can one day. I know I would appreciate the money much more seeing that happen." }, { "docid": "57229", "title": "", "text": "Your clients should not send you 1099-MISC if they paid with a credit card. You can refer them to this text in the instructions for the form 1099-MISC: Payments made with a credit card or payment card and certain other types of payments, including third party network transactions, must be reported on Form 1099-K by the payment settlement entity under section 6050W and are not subject to reporting on Form 1099-MISC. See the separate Instructions for Form 1099-K. By sending out the 1099-MISC, your clients are essentially saying that they paid you directly (check or cash) in addition to the payment they made with a credit card (which will be reported on 1099-K). In case of an audit, you'll have trouble convincing the IRS that it didn't happen. I suggest asking the clients not to do this to you, since it may cost you significant amounts to fight the IRS later on. In any case, you report on your tax return what you really got, not what the 1099 says. If you have two 1099's covering the same income - there's no legal obligation to report the income twice. You do not have to pay twice the tax just because you have stupid clients. But you may have troubles explaining it to the IRS, especially if you're dealing with cash in your business. If you want to avoid matching issues, consider reporting all the 1099s, and then subtracting the duplicates and attaching a statement (the software will do it automatically when you add the description in the miscellaneous item) about what it is." }, { "docid": "477434", "title": "", "text": "This should not be taken to be financial advice or guidance. My opinions are my own and do not represent professional advice or consultation on my part or that my employer. Now that we have that clear... Your idea is a very good one. I'm not sure about the benefits of a EBITDA for personal financial planning (or for financial analysis, for that matter, but we will that matter to the side). If you have a moderate (>$40,000) income, then taxes should be one the largest, if not the largest chunk of your paycheck out the door. I personally track my cash flow on a day-by-day basis. That is to say, I break out the actual cash payments (paychecks) that I receive and break them apart into the 14 day increments (paycheck/14). I then take my expenses and do the same. If you organize your expenses into categories, you will receive some meaningful numbers about your daily liquidity (i.e: cash flow before taxes, after taxes, cash flow after house expenses, ect) This serves two purposes. One, you will understand how much you can actually spend on a day-to-day basis. Second, once you realize your flexibility on a day-to-day basis, it is easy to plan and forecast your expenses." }, { "docid": "45718", "title": "", "text": "\"I use online banking as much as possible and I think it may help you get closer to your goal. I see you want to know where the money goes and save time so it should work for you like it did for me. I used to charge everything or write checks and then pay a big visa bill. My problem was I never knew exactly how much I spent because neither Visa or check writing are record systems. They just generate transactions records. I made it a goal use online banking to match my spending to the available cash and ended up ok usually 9-10 months out of the year. I started with direct deposit of my paycheck. Each Saturday, I sit down and within a half hour, I've paid the bills for the week and know where I stand for the following week. Any new bill that comes in, I add it to online banking even if it's not a recurring expense. I also pull down cash from the ATM but just enough to allow me to do what I have to do. If it's more than $30 or $40 bucks, I use the debit card so that expense goes right to the online bank statement. My monthly bank statement gives me a single report with everything listed. Mortgage, utilities, car payment, cable bill, phone bill, insurance, newspaper, etc... It does not record these transactions in generic categories; they actually say Verizon or Comcast or Shop Rite. I found this serves as the only report I need to see what's happening with my budget. It may take a while to change to a plan like this one. but you'll now have a system that shows you in a single place where the money goes. Move all bills that are \"\"auto-pay\"\" to the online system and watch your Visa bill go down. The invested time is likely what you're doing now writing checks. Hope this helps.\"" }, { "docid": "161010", "title": "", "text": "To me it sounds like you need to come up with 67K (30+37), part of the time you can work in the current job, part of the time you could work a lower paying part time job (for a year). Lets assume that you can earn 15K for that year, and you can save 5K from your current job. (I'd try and save more, but what ever you can do.) 67 - 15 - 5 = 47 I'd sell the investment property. First you will have some funds to throw at this need, second you expense should go down as you don't have a payment on this property. 47 - 26 = 21 You have 32K in cash which is a lot for someone in your expense range. Six months would be 15K, so I would use some of that cash: 21 - 17 = 4 Now you are really close. If needed I'd use the investments to cover the last 4k or even more of the on hand cash. However, could you do something to reduce that amount further ...like working more." } ]

[ { "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": "442503", "title": "", "text": "To start with, you are right, there shouldn't be any additional fees other than the currency exchange fee - I'm not sure of the exact fee for Natwest, but for Halifax this was around 2.5% for big currencies like the Euro. However, Germany doesn't actually use debit cards nearly as much as we do here in the UK, so you will almost certainly need cash. Rather than taking this from a currency exchange booth, what you should do in order to get the lowest fees is head straight to the ATM of any bank, and put your card in to make a cash withdrawal. It will almost certainly ask if you want to use their exchange rate, which it will show you, and you will almost certainly be better turning this down and allowing Natwest to do this for you. Dependent on the bank their currency exchange spread may be as high as 4.5%. I hope this helps, it certainly saved me a lot of money when I have been going abroad." }, { "docid": "316980", "title": "", "text": "\"I'm interested in the answer to this question too. I got a job as an accounts receivable analyst about 4 months ago. It mostly involves running SQL queries on the companies database and determining whether things like the timing and movement of products/cash are appropriate. About 95% of my day is spent in Excel either analyzing data trends, correcting accounts where product or cash is out of alignment, and writing my boss/the c-level conclusions based on the state of all things AR. The other 5% of my day is staring vacantly at a blank piece of paper as I try to wrap my head around what I should be asking our database, and how to organize the results to find out what I need to be finding out. I would honestly say 30% of the work is mindlessly easy for me (now that I know what I'm doing), 50% of the work is smash-my-face-against-the-wall confusing, and 20% is \"\"I am solving problems by learning new things, hooray!\"\". I was not particularly interested in finance, in fact my skill set was computers then I found languages and went on a decade long tangent learning that. Turns out languages don't pay the bills very well and I need a career. I can get my company to pay for some education, but I don't know if finance is what I really want to do. Having read the rest of the comments in the thread, I will say I am not at all competitive with others (though I hold myself to very high standards). And if I feel others are too aggressive I will shut them out. I sometimes hear higher-ups in my company on the phone using their A-type personalities and wrestling with 3rd party companies and picture myself hanging up on them if I were on the other end of the phone.\"" }, { "docid": "3926", "title": "", "text": "&gt;I appreciate the detailed responses, truthfully however I feel like at least half of your points are either just argumentative for its sake alone, display a deep lack of understanding of unions, collective bargaining, and the histories of both, or ignore pragmatism and cling to an uncompromising and ultimately self-defeating ideology. I feel the same way about your arguments, but I still try to respond to the content of your arguments rather than my assumptions about them. &gt;The law forces the two parties to sit at a table. The law forces the two parties to discuss a few core things, like wages. The law should not force any party to sit at any table. That violates a party's contract liberty. &gt;The idea is since these worker-employer disputes exist naturally, making them at least sit at a table together and talking is helpful in avoiding ego and testosterone fueled disruptions where no one benefits. That's nice that you think you know what's better for other people than they do for themselves, but that doesn't give you a right to force them to any table. A right to contract freedom means the right to dismiss any offer or refuse to even negotiate with a party. &gt;If this you see this as a violation of one's liberty, I really don't know what to say to that. Then I guess we have fundamentally different ideas about what is freedom and what is not. You seem to think that forcing someone to negotiate with a party, against their will, is not a violation of any of their rights. &gt;I'm not saying I don't believe you, but citation needed. Sorry I don't have time to dig up citations now. If I have time later, I'd be happy to do so. All I could find now is an inverse correlation between the state of a country's credit market and the rate of child labor: http://www.fordschool.umich.edu/rsie/workingpapers/Papers476-500/r486.pdf &gt;&gt;There is an abundance of indirect empirical evidence, discussed below, concerning the role of credit constraints and educational attainment. However, Dehejia and Gatti (2002) test the hypothesis directly. They estimate a basic model of child labor determination for a panel of 172 countries for the years 1950-60, 1970, 1980, and 1995. &gt;&gt;The credit-constraint variable is proxied by the share in GDP of private credit issued by 10 deposit-money banks. They find that a one standard deviation increase in the share of credit in GDP is associated with a 10 percent standard deviation decrease in child labor. They conclude that families with access to credit are considerably less likely to put children to work during a period of economic volatility than parents without access to credit. &gt;Wouldn't educating children first lead to an increase in productivity? Also, what if the owners of the means of production, only a few in an given area, have incomes 100x greater than the workers? If there are efficient financial markets that allow parents to borrow money against the expected future increase in earnings from their children being educated, then yes. In less developed economies, these markets have not developed, and the choice is often between death and child labor. &gt;They seem to be producing enough wealth to support themselves, only they're not the beneficiaries. Studies have shown that by and large, parents act altruistically towards their children, and only put them to work if it is in the children's best interest. e.g. page 32: http://www.econ.puc-rio.br/pdf/seminario/2003/manacorda.pdf &gt;&gt;Taking together the evidence so far presented, it appears that the data are consistent with a model where the returns from child labor do not accrue to the parents. Parents redistribute entirely these returns to their children in the form of lower labor supply and higher schooling (plus possibly increased consumption). 47 Laws against child labor therefore will generally do more harm than good. &gt;What's the solution here? The solution is to let the process of economic development run its course until child labor is not necessary. &gt;This is typical anti-union propaganda, and it's funny you pull it out since it ignores your own ideology. What interest would a union have in destroying the very industry it needs to exist? Answer: none. A union is not a self-interested party. A union represents self-interested parties, who are not directly affected by the destruction of their industry 30 years into the future, since they would have retired by then. Many of the laws and union-backed agreements that ended up destroying many of America's industries took decades to have their full effect. It wasn't a case of a law being passed, and the next year, the industry going bankrupt. &gt;I have no idea how one could come to this conclusion. I can only assume it stems from the same old idea that employers are always paying out the most that they can afford. Why should employers pay out the most they can afford, and why should laws be passed to force employers to do so? The only reason people invest is to profit. If all profits had to be paid to employees, there would be no incentive to invest, and therefore no increase in capital/productivity. &gt;I happen to have first-hand knowledge that it's false however - when my workplace unionized recently, one of around a dozen locations nationally and the only one to organize, the company responded by increasing wages and benefits to all locations. Have any locations closed? No. Has anyone been laid off? No. Is the company still mad profitable? Yes. A general effect happens gradually over a course of decades, and happens in the aggregate, not in every case. It will not be apparent in the short-run, and will not be manifested in every case. In other words, that unionization did not result in immediate bankruptcy of your industry does not prove that unionization does not have a negative effect over the average long term performance of industries and average long term increase in wages." }, { "docid": "158455", "title": "", "text": "Let me add a counterpoint. I don't know about you, but for some psychological reason, when I know I have an abundance of something I tend to be less frugal about the way I consume it. For example: When there is a six pack of cokes in the fridge I feel like I am more prone to not drink them up so quickly so I have some for later on. However, if I knew I had 3 more cases in the pantry, I seem to go through a lot more of them." }, { "docid": "553192", "title": "", "text": "Your analogy is a poor representation of my point. My point being that finding success in life is hard, no matter what you want to do. An idea that is consistent in all ideologies. Well, it is solely controlled by s/d, kinda. The things you listed all affect s/d which controls the market. Of course there will always be waves of new graduates to fill min wage jobs, because most everyone can do them, that was kinda my point. It's not so much the company controlling demand as it is the company adjusting to it, if there are an abundance of min wage jobs relative to the amount of workers, they wouldn't be min wage jobs. This premise of s/d is in no way unique to capitalism. And even the fluctuations in compensation to mirror your contribution and skills isn't unique to capitalism. Sure capitalism favors those with more capital, which is the point. In order to acquire capital you need to do productive things, which (idealy) are productive to some degree to society as a whole. So, acquire more capital- SEE IT'S SO EASY!" }, { "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": "202355", "title": "", "text": "\"Is the mortgage debt too high? The rental property is in a hot RE market, so could be easily sold with significant equity. However, they would prefer to keep it. Given the current income, there is no stress. However in absence of any other liquid [cash/near cash] assets, having everything locked into Mortgage is quite high. Even if real estate builds assets, these are highly illiquid investments. Have debt on such investments is risky; if there are no other investments. Essentially everything looks fine now, but if there is an crisis, unwinding mortgage debt is time consuming and if it forces distress sale, it would wipe out any gains. Can they afford another mortgage, and in what amount? (e.g. they are considering $50K for a small cabin, which could be rented out). I guess they can. But should they? Or diversify into other assets like stocks etc. Other than setting cash aside, what would be some good uses of funds to make sure the money would appreciate and outpace inflation and add a nice bonus to retirement? Mutual Funds / Stocks / bullions / 401K or other such retirement plans. They are currently in mid-30's. If there is ONE key strategy or decision they could make today that would help them retire \"\"early\"\" (say, mid-50's), what should it be? This opinion based ... it depends on \"\"what their lifestyle is\"\" and what would they want their \"\"lifestyle\"\" to be when they retire. They should look at saving enough corpus that would give an year on year yield equivalent to the retirement expenses.\"" }, { "docid": "115817", "title": "", "text": "All value given to products is subjective and is different from person to person. It can also vary for the same person from year to year, month to month, day to day, or even hour to hour as a person analyzes different products and prices to determine which imparts the most value to him or her at a given point in time. In regards to losing money in your investment accounts. This reminds of a book I read on Jesse Livermore. Jesse was a famous stock broker who made millions (in the 1920's so he would be a billionaire in today's money) in the stock market multiple times. Jesse felt like you - he felt like after a while the losses on paper did not seem to concern him as much as he thought it should. He thought it was due to the investment accounts being simply being numbers on papers and not cold, hard cash. So what did Jesse do to remove the abstract nature of investment accounts? From here: Livermore always sold out all his positions at the end of every year and had the cash deposited in his account at the Chase Manhattan Bank. Then he would arrange with the bank to have the money, in cash, in the bank’s vault in chests. “There was a desk, a chair, a cot and an easy chair in the middle of the cash.” On the occasion described in 1923, there was $50 million in cash. In the corner was a fridge with food, enough for a few days. There was lighting installed. Then, like Scrooge McDuck, Livermore would have himself locked in the vault with his cash. He would stay a couple of days and “review his year from every aspect.” After his stay was over, he would fill his pockets with cash and go on a shopping spree. He would also take a vacation and not re-enter the market until February. But unlike Scrooge McDuck, this was not the act of a miser, explains Smitten. Livermore lived a world of paper transactions all year long. He believed that “by the end of the year he had lost his perception of what the paper slips really represented, cash money and ultimately power.” He “needed to touch the money and feel the power of cash.” It made him re-appraise his stock and commodity positions. Imagine the $60,000 from your investment account sitting on your kitchen table. Imagine seeing $1,000 dumped into the trash can one day. I know I would appreciate the money much more seeing that happen." }, { "docid": "177563", "title": "", "text": "\"I would say that you should keep in mind one simple idea. Leverage was the principal reason for the 2008 financial meltdown. For a great explanation on this, I would HIGHLY recommend Michael Lewis' book, \"\"The Big Short,\"\" which does an excellent job in spelling out the case against being highly leveraged. As Dale M. pointed out, losses are greatly magnified by your degree of leverage. That being said, there's nothing wrong with being highly leveraged as a short-term strategy, and I want to emphasize the \"\"short-term\"\" part. If, for instance, an opportunity arises where you aren't presently liquid enough to cover then you could use leverage to at least stay in the game until your cash situation improves enough to de-leverage the investment. This can be a common strategy in equities, where you simply substitute the term \"\"leverage\"\" for the term \"\"margin\"\". Margin positions can be scary, because a rapid downturn in the market can cause margin calls that you're unable to cover, and that's disastrous. Interestingly, it was the 2008 financial crisis which lead to the undoing of Bernie Madoff. Many of his clients were highly leveraged in the markets, and when everything began to unravel, they turned to him to cash out what they thought they had with him to cover their margin calls, only to then discover there was no money. Not being able to meet the redemptions of his clients forced Madoff to come clean about his scheme, and the rest is history. The banks themselves were over-leveraged, sometimes at a rate of 50-1, and any little hiccup in the payment stream from borrowers caused massive losses in the portfolios which were magnified by this leveraging. This is why you should view leverage with great caution. It is very, very tempting, but also fraught with extreme peril if you don't know what you're getting into or don't have the wherewithal to manage it if anything should go wrong. In real estate, I could use the leverage of my present cash reserves to buy a bigger property with the intent of de-leveraging once something else I have on the market sells. But that's only a wise play if I am certain I can unwind the leveraged position reasonably soon. Seriously, know what you're doing before you try anything like this! Too many people have been shipwrecked by not understanding the pitfalls of leverage, simply because they're too enamored by the profits they think they can make. Be careful, my friend.\"" }, { "docid": "206483", "title": "", "text": "Technically, the answer is no, you can't put more money in to that ISA in that tax year once you've transferred it (unless you've transferred it to a Stocks and Shares ISA). FAQs 7 and 8 from http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/isa/faqs.htm cover these cases: Q. I have transferred current year payments to my cash ISA to a stocks and shares ISA, can I make any further payments to a cash ISA in this tax year? A. Yes - provided you haven't already used up your annual ISA investment allowance (£11,520 in the tax year 2013-14). When you transfer current year payments to your cash ISA to a stocks and shares ISA it is as if that cash ISA had never existed. Any money you saved up to the date of transfer will be treated as if you had invested that money directly in the stocks and shares ISA. For example, if you had put £2,000 in a cash ISA and then transferred it to a stocks and shares ISA you would be able to make further payments totalling £9,520 in that tax year. You could either put all of the £9,520 in the stocks and shares ISA or you could put up to £5,760 in a cash ISA (with the same or a different ISA manager) and the remainder of the £9,520 in the stocks and shares ISA. Q. How many ISAs can I have? A. There are limits on the number of ISA accounts you can subscribe to each tax year. You can only put money into one cash ISA and one stocks and shares ISA. But in different years, you could choose to save with different managers. There are no limits on the number of different ISAs you can hold over time. However, in practice, if you transfer mid-year from Provider A to Provider B, Provider B has no way of telling whether you have already put money in to the ISA with Provider A that year or not, so you will be able to put more money in. I believe that ISA providers do report their subscriptions back to HMRC so they can check for multiple subscriptions (over the limit) in one tax year; but in the past, I have done exactly what you describe and it has never been picked up in any way or caused any problem at all. As long as you stick to total subscriptions within the limit, I'd guess you're unlikely to encounter a problem. (Of course I am not a financial advisor so you should take what I say with the same pinch of salt as you would take any other random advice from the internet)." }, { "docid": "365648", "title": "", "text": "\"In addition to Alex B's excellent overview, I'd like to add a few more bits of advice. First of all, one term you should know is \"\"commercial real estate\"\" - which is precisely what this is. There is a business element, but it is strictly (and almost entirely) intertwined to the underlying real estate, which makes this a special category of business which is generally considered simply \"\"commercial real estate\"\" (just like office buildings, shopping malls, etc). All real estate and businesses value are based on alternatives - what other options are there? In appraisal, these are generally called \"\"comparables\"\". A professional appraiser is generally available for commercial real estate of this type. While a full, official commercial appraisal can run into the thousands, many/most (all?) appraisers are willing to sell you a simplified version of their service, which can be called a \"\"letter of opinion\"\" and can help you get an idea for the market price (what other similar commercial properties are running for). A loan company would strictly require this, but if you are thinking of an all cash or form of seller-financing this would technically be optional. Your best bet is to read about some of what is involved in commercial real estate appraisal and evaluation, and you may even want to speak with commercial loan officers - even if you don't know that you want to get a loan to acquire the property! It's their job to help inform you about what is required and what they look for, so they can be a potential resource beyond your own research as well. With this said, the only way to estimate value (and, conveniently, the best way) is to look at other properties! And by \"\"others\"\", I mean that you should really not consider buying absolutely anything until you've viewed at least 6-10 other options in some depth - and you probably want to double or triple that number if you are looking to make this the last big business transaction of your life. If you don't you'll be relying on little more than dumb luck to carry you through - which in this area of business, you don't want to do because the dollar amounts and liabilities involved can bankrupt you in no time flat. With that general advice out of the way, here's a tiny nutshell version of valuation of commercial real estate. There are a few key parts involved in commercial real estate: land, improvements (buildings, docks, stuff like that), income, and wages. Land: the value of the land is based upon what you could sell it for, as-is. That is to say - who else might want it? This alone has many important factors, such as zoning laws, the neighborhood (including your neighbors), water/utilities, pacts on the land (someone may have insisted the land not be paved into a parking lot, or really anything like that), alternative uses (could you put a golf course on it, or is the land suitable for a big building or farming?), etc. And is this in a growing area, where you might hope the value will increase over the next decade, or decrease, or basically stay flat (and possibly cause losses compared to inflation)? Improvements: anything on the land is both an asset and a liability. It's an asset because it could add to the value of the land, but it might also reduce the land value if it interferes with alternate land uses. It's a liability, both in the legal sense and in that it requires maintenance. If you want to rent them out, especially, that means concern about any foundations involved, termites, roofs, sewage/septic tanks, utilities that are your responsibility (pipes, poles, wires), as well as any sort of ac/heating you may have, docks, and so on. These things are rarely free and absolutely can eat you alive. Income: Ah, the best part, the constant influx of cash! But wait, is it a constant influx? Some businesses are purely seasonal (summer only, winter only), some are year-round but have peak times, and others don't really have a \"\"peak\"\" to speak of. If you are renting, are there issues collecting, or with people over-staying? How about damage, making a mess, getting rowdy and disturbing others? Regardless, there is obviously some income, and this is usually the most dangerous part of the equation. I say \"\"dangerous\"\", because people absolutely lie like dogs on this part, all the time. It's easy to cook the books, assuming they even attempt to keep proper books in the first place! Businesses of this form often have a lot of cash business that's easy to hide (from Uncle Sam, or sometimes even the owners themselves if there are employees involved) - and fake! And some people are just shoddy bookkeepers and the info is just wrong. But, there will clearly be some kind of yearly income involved. What does this matter? Well...how much is there? How much is tied to the owners (personal friends do business and they will leave if the ownership/management changes)? In commercial real estate the income will be calculated for a fiscal year, and then there is something called a \"\"multiple\"\", which is market dependent. Let's say the whole place takes in $100k in rent a year. As part of buying this business, you are buying not just assets, but expected future income. In some commercial areas the multiple is as little as .5 to 2 - which means that the going rate is about 6-24 months worth of income, as part of the purchase price. So with 100k rent a year, that means 50k-200k of the purchase price is attributable to the income of the business. And if business is half of what you thought it would be? That means the net value of the whole enterprise decreases by 25k-100k - on top of the reduced income every year you own it! Income provides cash flow, which should pay all the expenses (cleaning up from wind storms, replacing windows that are broken, hauling off trash, replacing a well that ran dry), and then the extra that remains is positive cash flow. If you take out a loan, then ideally the cash flow would also pay that completely so long as you don't have any big unexpected expenses in the year - and still have some left over for yourself. Wages: Well, that money doesn't collect itself! There's sales, keeping the books, collecting the rent, performing maintenance, customer service, cleaning, paying the bills, keeping the insurance people happy, handling emergencies, and everything else involved with running the business. Someone is going to do it, and the biggest error people make here is not to put any value on their time - and to make it so they can never afford to take a vacation again! Pay yourself, and give yourself the flexibility to pay others when you can't (or don't want) to do it all yourselves. So, what's the point of all this? How do you actually make any money? In two ways: 1) selling the whole thing later, and 2) cash flow. For 1, it's important that you not be in a situation where you are betting that in the future there will be a \"\"person richer, and dumber, than I am now\"\". If the current owner wanted 2 million, then 1 mil, then less, over multiple years...this suggests either he is delusional about the value of his place (and most property owners are), or that its actually hard to find a buyer for such a business. You are going to want to make sure you understand why that is, because most of the value of real estate is...well, in the real estate itself! For 2, you need cash coming in that's considerably more than the cost of running the place. Also, cash flow can strongly change the value of the business for resale (depending on the multiple, this can make a huge difference or prevent you from selling the thing at all). You mentioned you want to put in more cabins, more marketing/sales efforts, etc. That's great, but first, that would mean added investment beyond the purchase price. Is it legally and physically practical to add more cabins, and what is their current utilization rate? If they are only renting 10% of their current capacity, increasing capacity may be premature. This will also vary through the year, so you may find there is a problem with being sold out sometimes...but only for a small percentage of the time. Which means you'll be adding buildings only to have them used for a fraction of the year, which will be very hard to make a profit from. If cash flow is good, ideally even being enough to cover a loan payment to help cover the purchase price (and remember that commercial real estate loans are much smaller loan-to-value ratios than in residential real estate), there is one final barrier to making money: the damn non-regular maintenance! Roofs, wells, and wooden walls all have a sad tendency to cost you nothing right up until the point they cost you $30k+ on a single day. Is there enough cash flow to make these sort of certainties (and if you plan to be there for years, they are a certainty) not put you in the poor house? This was rather long, but I hope this overview helps you appreciate all that you'll need to look into and be cautious of during your future en-devour! Commercial real estate is generally costly and high-risk, but also can be high reward. You'll need to compare many opportunities before you can get a \"\"feel\"\" for what is a good deal and what is a terrible one. You'll need to consider many factors, such as resale value and cash flow/income (which they will have to tell you and you can assume is not true, due to ignorance or malice), as well as maintenance and liabilities, before you can begin to really estimate the value of an enterprise of this sort. There are people who can help you, like appraisers and commercial brokers, but ultimately you'll need to do a lot of research and comparisons yourself to help you make a good decision. Finally, there is no very simple method for evaluating commercial real estate value. You need a variety of information, and you must be skeptical of what you are told because of the very large sums of money involved. It is doable (lots of people do it), but you must take care and do your due diligence so you don't get bankrupted by a single bad purchase.\"" }, { "docid": "39481", "title": "", "text": "\"Unfortunately, where I live, minimum wage is what is available to High School graduates. We have an abundance of minimum wage jobs looking to hire, and no docks, and few greater than minimum wage jobs for people right out of High School. And minimum wage isn't enough to support a person here. I think school costs have gone up for more than just loans for everyone. Our colleges have administration bloat, huge wages for the top few, and are being run like businesses rather than schools: profit over people. Their educational license still stands, but they work to increase their profit rather than increase their quality of education. I understand that there is a large \"\"blame game\"\" going on about why people are poor or undeserving. They are lazy. They are drug addicts and gangsters. They are entitled. Any excuse we can come up with to not help the other guy. The other issue is HOW we help the other guy: Do we hand them money and say, \"\"Go out and succeed\"\"? That's been our current method. But both of these issues again fall to education! If we can improve education so it teaches people how to have an impact on their world, how to find something they can do well, and how to succeed, then we can resolve the other issues. Right now, our schools teach basic skills: Math, Science, Reading to the extent that the students can past the tests. But the world is not built on Math, Science, and Reading. They are important, but more important are social skills, resource allocation and utilization, self-learning, testing and verifying. Teach them the basics! We need them! But teach them to be self-controlling, self-responsible people. I know this is part of the third paragraph, but I find, on the outset, we may seem like we have completely different views, when in reality, it is simply where we put the emphasis, not the actual view itself, that differs.\"" }, { "docid": "394154", "title": "", "text": "\"You manage this account just as any other account. \"\"Petty cash\"\" refers to accounts where the cash money is intended for ad-hoc purchases, where you store an amount of cash in your drawer and take it out as needed. However, other than naming it \"\"petty cash\"\", there's nothing petty about it - it's an account just as any other. Many choose to just \"\"deduct\"\" the amount transferred to \"\"Petty Cash\"\" account and not manage it at all. Here the amount matters - some smaller amounts can fall under \"\"de minimis\"\" rules of the appropriate regulatory authority. Since you told nothing about where you are and what your business is - we can't tell you what the rules are in your case. If you track the usage of this account (and from your description it sounds like you are) - then the name \"\"Petty Cash\"\" is meaningless. It's an account just like any other. Since you have an employee dealing with this cash you should establish some internal audit procedures to ensure that there's no embezzlement and everything is accounted for. You will probably want to reconcile this account more often than others and check more thoroughly on what's going on with it. Since its a \"\"personal finance\"\" forum, I'm assuming you're a sole proprietor or a very small business, and SEC/SOX rules don't apply to you. If they do - you should have a licensed accountant (CPA or whatever public accountancy designation is regulated in your area) to help you with this.\"" }, { "docid": "226850", "title": "", "text": "&gt; I'm saying that instead of some of these companies spending 70% of their earnings on stock buybacks they should reinvest that money into their employees and **pay out larger dividends to shareholders**. Wait...what? What do you think the difference between dividends and buybacks is? Buybacks and dividends are just different ways of distributing cash to shareholders. The main difference is that with a buyback, shareholders can choose whether to cash out or hold." }, { "docid": "488855", "title": "", "text": "Deficiency in Vitamin B2 will result to hair loss. Hair Eternity RDA for this vitamin is completely different in men and in women. Women want one. two mg of it per day while men need 1.6 mg per day. These vitamins are typically presented as B complex vitamin. It is abundant higher if you are taking it with Vitamin C for higher absorption. This is also another nice hair growth supplement. Hair Eternity Reviews can be very valuable when it comes to hair regeneration. Girls who need to have long hair quick should take this supplement for hair growth. Most dermatologists suggest biotin supplements to their as part of their hair restoration treatment." }, { "docid": "75021", "title": "", "text": "\"Coming from an area that is hurricane prone, and seeing what happens to local businesses during evacuations/power outages/gas shortages, I think what you already have on hand should be sufficient. And it sounds like that's exactly what you're budgeting for. I'd say 2 weeks worth of fuel and food costs, with the budget for each in line with riding out a natural disaster. True \"\"Preppers\"\" would say keep your money in gold buried in the backyard surrounded by land mines, but that's not perhaps what you're looking for. It is not uncommon for gas stations and grocery stores to revert to cash only sales, especially if they're not big chain operations. If the internet is out, or power is spotty, they may not be able to process CCs. Again, think smaller or more rural businesses. I have seen gas stations switch to cash only during gas shortages as well to help limit how much fuel people were buying. $250 should get you through fine unless you drive a tank and need steak every night. You could probably go with less, but it's entirely dependent on your needs. As Joe rightly stated in his answer, if it's desperate enough times that you can't use a CC or debit card, cash may not even be useful to you.\"" }, { "docid": "498337", "title": "", "text": "Cash should never have been placed in the mailbox in the first place; this is what checks are for. I would be a bit surprised if that constitutes your accepting payment, but I Am Not A Lawyer. You need local legal advice; this is the sort of thing where local rulings matter. Definitely report the missing money to the police, no matter what else you do. You do not have to give them an opinion on whether this was a theft or an attempted fraud; just give them the facts that the tenant says they left money in the box but you didn't find it there." }, { "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": "349237", "title": "", "text": "\"Budgeting is a tool for planning, not for execution. It sounds like you don't have a problem BUDGETING (planning what to spend on what things) but rather with the execution of your plan. That is - living frugally. This is primarily an issue of self control and personal psychology - not an issue with the mechanics of budgeting and finance, which explains why the most popular personal finance \"\"gurus\"\" (Dave Ramsey, Suze Ormond) deal as much with your relationship to money and spending as they do with financial knowledge. There is no easy answer here, but you can learn to spend less. One helpful thought is to realize that whatever your current income is, someone in your community is currently making less than that and surviving. What would you do differently if your real, actual income was $100 or $200 less than it is currently. If your food budget is a concern, learn to cook cheaply. (Often, this is more healthy.) You mentioned schooling, so I assume you are on or near a college campus. Many colleges have all sorts of free-food opportunities. (I used to eat free vegetarian meals weekly at a Hare Krsna temple. Price of admission: listening to the monk read from the Bhagavad Gita.) Fast food is, of course, a complete no-no on low-budget living. It probably goes without saying, but just in case you haven't: cancel cable, get a cheap phone plan (Ting is excellent if available in your area), and otherwise see how you can squeeze a few dollars out of your bills. On the subject of frugality, I have found no book more enlightening than: Money Secrets of the Amish: Finding True Abundance in Simplicity, Sharing, and Saving\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "345199", "title": "", "text": "\"Since your 401k/IRA are maxed out and you don't need a 529 for kids, the next step is a plain ol' \"\"Taxable account.\"\" The easiest and most hassle-free would be automatic contributions into a Mutual Fund. Building on poolie's answer, I think mutual funds are much more automatic/hassle-free than ETFs, so in your case (and with your savings rate), just invest in the Investor (or Admiral) shares of VEU and VTI. Other hassle-free options include I-Bonds ($5k/year), and 5-year CDs.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "204659", "title": "", "text": "\"This style of budgeting is referred to as the 'Envelope' method. It could be done by withdrawing cash from the checking account and putting into envelopes (which I used to do for my Grocery & Clothing funds). I currently do this in GnuCash by creating sub-accounts of the actual bank accounts. The software rolls up the numbers so when I am looking at the \"\"real\"\" account I see the number that matches what the bank says. It is not, however, web-based. You should be able to do the same in other tools if they allow you to create sub-accounts, or have some budgeting feature built in.\"" }, { "docid": "151554", "title": "", "text": "Given your needs, GNUcash will do swimmingly. I've used it for the past 3 years and while it's a gradual learning process, it's been able to resolve most stuff I've thrown at it. Schedule bills and deposits in the calendar view so I can keep an eye on cash flow. GNUcash has scheduled payments and receipts and reconcilation, should you need them. I prefer to keep enough float to cover monthly expenses in accounts rather than monitor potential shortfalls. Track all my stock and mutual fund investments across numerous accounts. It pulls stock, mutual and bond quotes from lots of places, domestic and foreign. It can also pull transaction data from your brokers, if they support that. I manually enter all my transactions so I can keep control of them. I just reconcile what I entered into Quicken based on the statements sent to me. I do not use Quicken's bill pay There's a reconciliation mode, but I don't use it personally. The purpose of reconcilation is less about catching bank errors and more about agreeing on the truth so that you don't incur bank fees. When I was doing this by hand I found I had a terrible data entry error rate, but on the other hand, the bayesian importer likes to mark gasoline purchases from the local grocery store as groceries rather than gas. I categorize all my expenditures for help come tax time. GNUcash has accounts, and you can mark expense accounts as tax related. It also generates certain tax forms for you if you need that. Not sure what all you're categorizing that's helpful at tax time though. I use numerous reports including. Net Worth tracking, Cash not is retirement funds and total retirement savings. Tons of reports, and the newest version supports SQL backends if you prefer that vs their reports." }, { "docid": "310871", "title": "", "text": "I have this exact same issue. Event the dollar amounts are close. Here is how I am looking at the problem. Option 1: Walk away. Goodbye credit for 7+ years. Luckily I can operate in cash with the extra $800 per month, but should I have a non medical emergency I might be SOL. With a family I am not sure I am willing to risk it. What if my car dies the month after I quit paying and the bank chooses to foreclose? What if my wife or I lose our job and we have no credit to live? Option 2: Short sale. Good if I can let it happen. I might or might not be on the hook for the balance depending on the state. If I am on the hook, okay, suck but I could live. If I am not on the hook, it is going to hurt my credit the same as foreclosure. It isn't easy, you need an experienced real estate agent and a willing bank. Option 3: Keep paying. I am going for this. At the moment I can still afford the house even though it is at the expense of some luxuries in my live. (Cable TV, driving to work, a new computer). I am wagering the market fixes itself in the next several years. Should the S hit the fan in most any manner, the mortgage is the first thing I stop paying. I don't know what other options I have. I can't re-fi; too upside down. I can't sell; the house isn't worth the mortgage (and I don't have the cash for the balance). I can't walk away; the credit hit wouldn't be worth the monthly money gain. I have no emotions about the house. I am in a real bad investment and getting out now seems like a good idea, but I am going to guess that having the house 10 years from now is better than not. I don't care about the bank at all, nor do I feel I owe them the money because I took the loan. They assumed risk loaning me the money in the first place. The minute it gets worse for me than for the bank; I will stop paying. Summary Not much to do without a serious consequence. I would suggest holding out for the very long term if you feel you can. The best way to minimize the bad investment is to ride it out and pray it gets better. I am thinking I am a landlord for the next 10 years." }, { "docid": "229617", "title": "", "text": "Women entered the work force en mass. And, with twice as many potential employees the cost of labor decreased. That is, of course, the non-PC version and it began earlier than the 80s but it's essentially correct--labor like any other commodity increases in value relative to its scarcity. If all the women (or all the men, or all of any sizeable group) left the labor market the price of labor would begin to increase as companies bid up the price they were willing to pay for each employee. With today's level of globalization this becomes a much more complicated equation--do local wages rise or do jobs migrate to abundant (and cheap) labor? But, it's the same idea." }, { "docid": "523949", "title": "", "text": "As a general rule, diversification means carrying sufficient amounts in cash equivalents, stocks, bonds, and real estate. An emergency fund should have six months income (conservative) or expenses (less conservative) in some kind of cash equivalent (like a savings account). As you approach retirement, that number should increase. At retirement, it should be something like five years of expenses. At that time, it is no longer an emergency fund, it's your everyday expenses. You can use a pension or social security to offset your effective monthly expenses for the purpose of that fund. You should five years net expenses after income in cash equivalents after retirement. The normal diversification ratio for stocks, bonds, and real estate is something like 60% stocks, 20% bonds, and 20% real estate. You can count the equity in your house as part of the real estate share. For most people, the house will be sufficient diversification into real estate. That said, you should not buy a second home as an investment. Buy the second home if you can afford it and if it makes you happy. Then consider if you want to keep your first home as an investment or just sell it now. Look at your overall ownership to determine if you are overweighted into real estate. Your primary house is not an investment, but it is an ownership. If 90% of your net worth is real estate, then you are probably underinvested in securities like stocks and bonds. 50% should probably be an upper bound, and 20% real estate would be more diversified. If your 401k has an employer match, you should almost certainly put enough in it to get the full match. I prefer a ratio of 70-75% stocks to 25-30% bonds at all ages. This matches the overall market diversification. Rebalance to stay in that range regularly, possibly by investing in the underweight security. Adding real estate to that, my preference would be for real estate to be roughly a quarter of the value of securities. So around 60% stocks, 20% bonds, and 20% real estate. A 50% share for real estate is more aggressive but can work. Along with a house or rental properties, another option for increasing the real estate share is a Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT). These are essentially a mutual fund for real estate. This takes you out of the business of actively managing properties. If you really want to manage rentals, make sure that you list all the expenses. These include: Also be careful that you are able to handle it if things change. Perhaps today there is a tremendous shortage of rental properties and the vacancy rate is close to zero. What happens in a few years when new construction provides more slack? Some kinds of maintenance can't be done with tenants. Also, some kinds of maintenance will scare away new tenants. So just as you are paying out a large amount of money, you also aren't getting rent. You need to be able to handle the loss of income and the large expense at the same time. Don't forget the sales value of your current house. Perhaps you bought when houses were cheaper. Maybe you'd be better off taking the current equity that you have in that house and putting it into your new house's mortgage. Yes, the old mortgage payment may be lower than the rent you could get, but the rent over the next thirty years might be less than what you could get for the house if you sold it. Are you better off with minimal equity in two houses or good equity with one house? I would feel better about this purchase if you were saying that you were doing this in addition to your 401k. Doing this instead of your 401k seems sketchy to me. What will you do if there is another housing crash? With a little bad luck, you could end up underwater on two mortgages and unable to make payments. Or perhaps not underwater on the current house, but not getting much back on a sale either. All that said, maybe it's a good deal. You have more information about it than we do. Just...be careful." }, { "docid": "363120", "title": "", "text": "Firstly, I'm going to do what you said and analyze your question taking your entire family's finances into account. That means giving you an answer that maximizes your family's total wealth rather then just your own. If instead of that your question really was, should I let my parents buy me a house and live rent free, then obviously you should do that (assuming your parents can afford it and you aren't taking advantage people who need to be saving for retirement and not wasting it on a 25 y/o who should be able to support him / herself). This is really an easy question assuming you are willing to listen to math. Goto the new york times rent vs buy calculator and plug in the numbers: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/upshot/buy-rent-calculator.html Firstly, if you do what you say you want to do buy the house all cash and live there for 4 years, it would be the equivalent of paying 1151 / month in rent once you factor in transaction costs, taxes, opportunity costs, etc. Take a look at the calculator, it's very detailed. This is why you should never buy houses all cash (unless its a negotiating tactic in a hot market, and even then you should refi after). Mortgage rates are super low right now, all that money sitting in the house is appreciating at maybe the rate of inflation (assuming the house value isn't going down which it can very easily do if you don't maintain it, another cost you need to factor in). Instead, you could be invested in the stock market getting 8%, the lost opportunity cost there is huge. I'm not even considering your suggestion that you hang onto the house after you move out in 4 years. That's a terrible idea. Investment properties should be at a maximum value of 10x the yearly rent. I wouldn't pay more then 72K for a house / apartment that rents for only 600 / month (and even then I would look for a better deal, which you can find if you time things right). Don't believe me? Just do the numbers. Renting your 200K house for 600 / month is 7200 / year. Figure you'll need to spend 1% / year (I'm being optimistic here) on maintanence / vacancy (and I'm not even considering your time dealing with tenants). Plus another 1% or so on property tax. That's 4K / year, so your total profit is 3200 which is a return of only 1.6% on your 200K. You can get 1% in an ally savings account for comparison. Really you are much better off investing in a diversified portfolio. You only need 6 months living expenses in cash, so unless your family is ridicuouly wealthy (In which case you should be asking your financial planner what to do and not stack exchange), I have no idea why your parents have 200K sitting around in a savings account earning 0. Open a vanguard account for them and put that money in VTI and your family will be much better off 5 years from now then if you buy that money pit (err house). If risk is a concern, diversify more. I have some money invested with a robo advisor. They do charge a small fee, but it's set it and forget it with auto diversification and tax loss harvesting. Bottom line is, get that money invested in something, having it sitting in a bank account earning 0 is probably the second worst thing you could do with next to buying this house." }, { "docid": "161010", "title": "", "text": "To me it sounds like you need to come up with 67K (30+37), part of the time you can work in the current job, part of the time you could work a lower paying part time job (for a year). Lets assume that you can earn 15K for that year, and you can save 5K from your current job. (I'd try and save more, but what ever you can do.) 67 - 15 - 5 = 47 I'd sell the investment property. First you will have some funds to throw at this need, second you expense should go down as you don't have a payment on this property. 47 - 26 = 21 You have 32K in cash which is a lot for someone in your expense range. Six months would be 15K, so I would use some of that cash: 21 - 17 = 4 Now you are really close. If needed I'd use the investments to cover the last 4k or even more of the on hand cash. However, could you do something to reduce that amount further ...like working more." }, { "docid": "553192", "title": "", "text": "Your analogy is a poor representation of my point. My point being that finding success in life is hard, no matter what you want to do. An idea that is consistent in all ideologies. Well, it is solely controlled by s/d, kinda. The things you listed all affect s/d which controls the market. Of course there will always be waves of new graduates to fill min wage jobs, because most everyone can do them, that was kinda my point. It's not so much the company controlling demand as it is the company adjusting to it, if there are an abundance of min wage jobs relative to the amount of workers, they wouldn't be min wage jobs. This premise of s/d is in no way unique to capitalism. And even the fluctuations in compensation to mirror your contribution and skills isn't unique to capitalism. Sure capitalism favors those with more capital, which is the point. In order to acquire capital you need to do productive things, which (idealy) are productive to some degree to society as a whole. So, acquire more capital- SEE IT'S SO EASY!" }, { "docid": "488855", "title": "", "text": "Deficiency in Vitamin B2 will result to hair loss. Hair Eternity RDA for this vitamin is completely different in men and in women. Women want one. two mg of it per day while men need 1.6 mg per day. These vitamins are typically presented as B complex vitamin. It is abundant higher if you are taking it with Vitamin C for higher absorption. This is also another nice hair growth supplement. Hair Eternity Reviews can be very valuable when it comes to hair regeneration. Girls who need to have long hair quick should take this supplement for hair growth. Most dermatologists suggest biotin supplements to their as part of their hair restoration treatment." }, { "docid": "409402", "title": "", "text": "\"Your dec ision is actually rather more complex than it first appears. The problem is that the limits on what you can pay into the HTB ISA might make it less attractive - it will all depend. Currently, you can put £15k/year into a normal ISA (Either Cash, or Stocks and Share or a combination). The HTB ISA only allows £200/month = £2,400/year. Since you can only pay into one Cash ISA in any one year you are going to lose out on the other £12,600 that you could save and grow tax free. Having said that, the 25% contribution by the govt. is extremely attractive and probably outweighs any tax saving. It is not so clear whether you can contribute to a HTB ISA (cash) and put the rest of your allowance into a Stocks and Shares ISA - if you can, you should seriously consider doing so. Yes this exposes you to a riskier investment (shares can go down as well as up etc.) but the benefits can be significant (and the gains are tax free). As said above, the rules are that money you have paid into an ISA in earlier years is separate - you can't pay any more into the \"\"old\"\" one whilst paying into a \"\"new\"\" one but you don't have to do anything with the \"\"old\"\" ISA. But you might WANT to do something since institutions are amazingly mean (underhand) in their treatment of customers. You may well find that the interest rate you get on your \"\"old\"\" ISA becomes less competitive over time. You should (Must) check every year what rate you are getting and whether you can get a better rate in a different ISA - if there is a better rate ISA and if it allows transfers IN, you should arrange to make the trasnfer - you ABSOLUTELY MUST TRANSFER between ISAs - never even think of taking the money out and then trying to pay it in to another ISA, it must be transferred directly between ISAs. So overall, yes, stop paying into the \"\"old\"\" ISA, open a new HTB ISA next year and if you can pay in the maximum do so. But if you can afford to save more, you might be able to open a Stocks and Shares ISA as well and pay into that too (max £15k into the pair in one year). And then do not \"\"forget\"\" about the \"\"old\"\" ISA(s) you will probably need to move all the money you have in the \"\"old\"\" one(s) regualrly into new ISAs to obtain a sensible rate. You might do well to read up on all this a lot more - I strongly recommend the site http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/ which gives a lot of helpful advice about everything to do with money (no I don't have any association with them).\"" }, { "docid": "226850", "title": "", "text": "&gt; I'm saying that instead of some of these companies spending 70% of their earnings on stock buybacks they should reinvest that money into their employees and **pay out larger dividends to shareholders**. Wait...what? What do you think the difference between dividends and buybacks is? Buybacks and dividends are just different ways of distributing cash to shareholders. The main difference is that with a buyback, shareholders can choose whether to cash out or hold." }, { "docid": "498337", "title": "", "text": "Cash should never have been placed in the mailbox in the first place; this is what checks are for. I would be a bit surprised if that constitutes your accepting payment, but I Am Not A Lawyer. You need local legal advice; this is the sort of thing where local rulings matter. Definitely report the missing money to the police, no matter what else you do. You do not have to give them an opinion on whether this was a theft or an attempted fraud; just give them the facts that the tenant says they left money in the box but you didn't find it there." }, { "docid": "3926", "title": "", "text": "&gt;I appreciate the detailed responses, truthfully however I feel like at least half of your points are either just argumentative for its sake alone, display a deep lack of understanding of unions, collective bargaining, and the histories of both, or ignore pragmatism and cling to an uncompromising and ultimately self-defeating ideology. I feel the same way about your arguments, but I still try to respond to the content of your arguments rather than my assumptions about them. &gt;The law forces the two parties to sit at a table. The law forces the two parties to discuss a few core things, like wages. The law should not force any party to sit at any table. That violates a party's contract liberty. &gt;The idea is since these worker-employer disputes exist naturally, making them at least sit at a table together and talking is helpful in avoiding ego and testosterone fueled disruptions where no one benefits. That's nice that you think you know what's better for other people than they do for themselves, but that doesn't give you a right to force them to any table. A right to contract freedom means the right to dismiss any offer or refuse to even negotiate with a party. &gt;If this you see this as a violation of one's liberty, I really don't know what to say to that. Then I guess we have fundamentally different ideas about what is freedom and what is not. You seem to think that forcing someone to negotiate with a party, against their will, is not a violation of any of their rights. &gt;I'm not saying I don't believe you, but citation needed. Sorry I don't have time to dig up citations now. If I have time later, I'd be happy to do so. All I could find now is an inverse correlation between the state of a country's credit market and the rate of child labor: http://www.fordschool.umich.edu/rsie/workingpapers/Papers476-500/r486.pdf &gt;&gt;There is an abundance of indirect empirical evidence, discussed below, concerning the role of credit constraints and educational attainment. However, Dehejia and Gatti (2002) test the hypothesis directly. They estimate a basic model of child labor determination for a panel of 172 countries for the years 1950-60, 1970, 1980, and 1995. &gt;&gt;The credit-constraint variable is proxied by the share in GDP of private credit issued by 10 deposit-money banks. They find that a one standard deviation increase in the share of credit in GDP is associated with a 10 percent standard deviation decrease in child labor. They conclude that families with access to credit are considerably less likely to put children to work during a period of economic volatility than parents without access to credit. &gt;Wouldn't educating children first lead to an increase in productivity? Also, what if the owners of the means of production, only a few in an given area, have incomes 100x greater than the workers? If there are efficient financial markets that allow parents to borrow money against the expected future increase in earnings from their children being educated, then yes. In less developed economies, these markets have not developed, and the choice is often between death and child labor. &gt;They seem to be producing enough wealth to support themselves, only they're not the beneficiaries. Studies have shown that by and large, parents act altruistically towards their children, and only put them to work if it is in the children's best interest. e.g. page 32: http://www.econ.puc-rio.br/pdf/seminario/2003/manacorda.pdf &gt;&gt;Taking together the evidence so far presented, it appears that the data are consistent with a model where the returns from child labor do not accrue to the parents. Parents redistribute entirely these returns to their children in the form of lower labor supply and higher schooling (plus possibly increased consumption). 47 Laws against child labor therefore will generally do more harm than good. &gt;What's the solution here? The solution is to let the process of economic development run its course until child labor is not necessary. &gt;This is typical anti-union propaganda, and it's funny you pull it out since it ignores your own ideology. What interest would a union have in destroying the very industry it needs to exist? Answer: none. A union is not a self-interested party. A union represents self-interested parties, who are not directly affected by the destruction of their industry 30 years into the future, since they would have retired by then. Many of the laws and union-backed agreements that ended up destroying many of America's industries took decades to have their full effect. It wasn't a case of a law being passed, and the next year, the industry going bankrupt. &gt;I have no idea how one could come to this conclusion. I can only assume it stems from the same old idea that employers are always paying out the most that they can afford. Why should employers pay out the most they can afford, and why should laws be passed to force employers to do so? The only reason people invest is to profit. If all profits had to be paid to employees, there would be no incentive to invest, and therefore no increase in capital/productivity. &gt;I happen to have first-hand knowledge that it's false however - when my workplace unionized recently, one of around a dozen locations nationally and the only one to organize, the company responded by increasing wages and benefits to all locations. Have any locations closed? No. Has anyone been laid off? No. Is the company still mad profitable? Yes. A general effect happens gradually over a course of decades, and happens in the aggregate, not in every case. It will not be apparent in the short-run, and will not be manifested in every case. In other words, that unionization did not result in immediate bankruptcy of your industry does not prove that unionization does not have a negative effect over the average long term performance of industries and average long term increase in wages." }, { "docid": "468732", "title": "", "text": "\"I love the subtitle on this article - \"\"Silicon Valley deals are not based on factors that bankers can model\"\" and another quote \"\"a DCF projection would not be able to help Mark Zuckerberg, the Facebook chief executive, work out whether Snapchat was worth $1bn or $10bn\"\" What a crock of BS. A DCF is exactly the methodology you should be using in order to value an acquisition (along with comparable company/transaction methods). Is it incredibly difficult to use the right variables and forecast the value of these companies? Yes. Is the inherent value of a company derived from the expected cash flows generated from that company once you acquire it? Yes. Just because it is hard doesn't mean you shouldn't do it. \"\"Big tech companies have never had more cash than they have today, and they are finding it just as hard to put their money to work as everybody else is.\"\" Well damn then maybe you should return that money back to the shareholders **who own the company** instead of blowing it on dot-bombs at stupid valuation levels.\"" }, { "docid": "354638", "title": "", "text": "\"This is an excellent question, one that I've pondered before as well. Here's how I've reconciled it in my mind. Why should we agree that a stock is worth anything? After all, if I purchase a share of said company, I own some small percentage of all of its assets, like land, capital equipment, accounts receivable, cash and securities holdings, etc., as others have pointed out. Notionally, that seems like it should be \"\"worth\"\" something. However, that doesn't give me the right to lay claim to them at will, as I'm just a (very small) minority shareholder. The old adage says that \"\"something is only worth what someone is willing to pay you for it.\"\" That share of stock doesn't actually give me any liquid control over the company's assets, so why should someone else be willing to pay me something for it? As you noted, one reason why a stock might be attractive to someone else is as a (potentially tax-advantaged) revenue stream via dividends. Especially in this low-interest-rate environment, this might well exceed that which I might obtain in the bond market. The payment of income to the investor is one way that a stock might have some \"\"inherent value\"\" that is attractive to investors. As you asked, though, what if the stock doesn't pay dividends? As a small shareholder, what's in it for me? Without any dividend payments, there's no regular method of receiving my invested capital back, so why should I, or anyone else, be willing to purchase the stock to begin with? I can think of a couple reasons: Expectation of a future dividend. You may believe that at some point in the future, the company will begin to pay a dividend to investors. Dividends are paid as a percentage of a company's total profits, so it may make sense to purchase the stock now, while there is no dividend, banking on growth during the no-dividend period that will result in even higher capital returns later. This kind of skirts your question: a non-dividend-paying stock might be worth something because it might turn into a dividend-paying stock in the future. Expectation of a future acquisition. This addresses the original premise of my argument above. If I can't, as a small shareholder, directly access the assets of the company, why should I attribute any value to that small piece of ownership? Because some other entity might be willing to pay me for it in the future. In the event of an acquisition, I will receive either cash or another company's shares in compensation, which often results in a capital gain for me as a shareholder. If I obtain a capital gain via cash as part of the deal, then this proves my point: the original, non-dividend-paying stock was worth something because some other entity decided to acquire the company, paying me more cash than I paid for my shares. They are willing to pay this price for the company because they can then reap its profits in the future. If I obtain a capital gain via stock in as part of the deal, then the process restarts in some sense. Maybe the new stock pays dividends. Otherwise, perhaps the new company will do something to make its stock worth more in the future, based on the same future expectations. The fact that ownership in a stock can hold such positive future expectations makes them \"\"worth something\"\" at any given time; if you purchase a stock and then want to sell it later, someone else is willing to purchase it from you so they can obtain the right to experience a positive capital return in the future. While stock valuation schemes will vary, both dividends and acquisition prices are related to a company's profits: This provides a connection between a company's profitability, expectations of future growth, and its stock price today, whether it currently pays dividends or not.\"" }, { "docid": "56924", "title": "", "text": "Your gut feeling is absolutely spot on - you shouldn't be worrying about pension now, not at the age of 25. Assuming that you're not a footballer in the middle of the most productive part of your career and already have a fat wad of crunchy banknotes under your pillow that you're looking to set aside for a rainy day when you won't be able to play at your prime any longer. That doesn't mean you shouldn't invest, nor that means that you mustn't save. There are several factors at play here. First of all as a young person you are likely to have a high tolerance for risk, there is still plenty of time to recover should expected returns not materialise. Even a pension fund with the most aggressive risk / return strategy might just not quite do it for you. You could invest into education instead, improve health, obtain a profitable skill, create social capital by building connections, pay for experience, buy a house, start a family or even a business. Next, as a young professional you're unlikely to have reached your full earning potential yet and due to the law of diminishing marginal utility a hundred pounds per month now have greater utility (i.e. positive impact on your lifestyle) than a seven hundred pounds will in 7-10 years time once your earnings plateaued. That is to say it's easier to save £700 month from £3000 and maintain a reasonable level of personal comfort than carve £100 from £1300 monthly income. And last, but not the least, lets face it from a human point of view - forty years is a very long investment horizon and many things might and will change. One of the downsides of UK pensions is that you have very little control over the money until you reach a certain age. Tactically I suggest saving up to build a cushion consisting of cash or near cash assets; the size of the stash should be such that it is enough to cover all of your expenses from a minimum of 2 months to a maximum of a year. The exact size will depend on your personal comfort level, whatever social net you have (parents, wife, partner) and how hard it will be to find a new source of income should the current cease to produce cash. On a strategic level you can start looking into investing any surplus cash into the foundation of what will bring joy and happiness into the next 40 years of your life. Your or your partners training and education is one of the most sensible choices whilst you're young. Starting a family is another one. Both might help you reach you full earning potential much quicker. Finding what you love to do and learning how to do it really well - cash can accelerate this process bringing you quicker there you want to be. If you were a start-up business in front of a huge uncaptured market would you rather use cash to pay dividends or finance growth?" }, { "docid": "316980", "title": "", "text": "\"I'm interested in the answer to this question too. I got a job as an accounts receivable analyst about 4 months ago. It mostly involves running SQL queries on the companies database and determining whether things like the timing and movement of products/cash are appropriate. About 95% of my day is spent in Excel either analyzing data trends, correcting accounts where product or cash is out of alignment, and writing my boss/the c-level conclusions based on the state of all things AR. The other 5% of my day is staring vacantly at a blank piece of paper as I try to wrap my head around what I should be asking our database, and how to organize the results to find out what I need to be finding out. I would honestly say 30% of the work is mindlessly easy for me (now that I know what I'm doing), 50% of the work is smash-my-face-against-the-wall confusing, and 20% is \"\"I am solving problems by learning new things, hooray!\"\". I was not particularly interested in finance, in fact my skill set was computers then I found languages and went on a decade long tangent learning that. Turns out languages don't pay the bills very well and I need a career. I can get my company to pay for some education, but I don't know if finance is what I really want to do. Having read the rest of the comments in the thread, I will say I am not at all competitive with others (though I hold myself to very high standards). And if I feel others are too aggressive I will shut them out. I sometimes hear higher-ups in my company on the phone using their A-type personalities and wrestling with 3rd party companies and picture myself hanging up on them if I were on the other end of the phone.\"" }, { "docid": "39481", "title": "", "text": "\"Unfortunately, where I live, minimum wage is what is available to High School graduates. We have an abundance of minimum wage jobs looking to hire, and no docks, and few greater than minimum wage jobs for people right out of High School. And minimum wage isn't enough to support a person here. I think school costs have gone up for more than just loans for everyone. Our colleges have administration bloat, huge wages for the top few, and are being run like businesses rather than schools: profit over people. Their educational license still stands, but they work to increase their profit rather than increase their quality of education. I understand that there is a large \"\"blame game\"\" going on about why people are poor or undeserving. They are lazy. They are drug addicts and gangsters. They are entitled. Any excuse we can come up with to not help the other guy. The other issue is HOW we help the other guy: Do we hand them money and say, \"\"Go out and succeed\"\"? That's been our current method. But both of these issues again fall to education! If we can improve education so it teaches people how to have an impact on their world, how to find something they can do well, and how to succeed, then we can resolve the other issues. Right now, our schools teach basic skills: Math, Science, Reading to the extent that the students can past the tests. But the world is not built on Math, Science, and Reading. They are important, but more important are social skills, resource allocation and utilization, self-learning, testing and verifying. Teach them the basics! We need them! But teach them to be self-controlling, self-responsible people. I know this is part of the third paragraph, but I find, on the outset, we may seem like we have completely different views, when in reality, it is simply where we put the emphasis, not the actual view itself, that differs.\"" }, { "docid": "75021", "title": "", "text": "\"Coming from an area that is hurricane prone, and seeing what happens to local businesses during evacuations/power outages/gas shortages, I think what you already have on hand should be sufficient. And it sounds like that's exactly what you're budgeting for. I'd say 2 weeks worth of fuel and food costs, with the budget for each in line with riding out a natural disaster. True \"\"Preppers\"\" would say keep your money in gold buried in the backyard surrounded by land mines, but that's not perhaps what you're looking for. It is not uncommon for gas stations and grocery stores to revert to cash only sales, especially if they're not big chain operations. If the internet is out, or power is spotty, they may not be able to process CCs. Again, think smaller or more rural businesses. I have seen gas stations switch to cash only during gas shortages as well to help limit how much fuel people were buying. $250 should get you through fine unless you drive a tank and need steak every night. You could probably go with less, but it's entirely dependent on your needs. As Joe rightly stated in his answer, if it's desperate enough times that you can't use a CC or debit card, cash may not even be useful to you.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "30417", "title": "", "text": "Zero. Zero is reasonable. That's what Schwab offers with a low minimum to open the IRA. The fact is, you'll have expenses for the investments, whether a commission on stock purchase or ongoing expense of a fund or ETF. But, in my opinion, .25% is criminal. An S&P fund or ETF will have a sub-.10% expense. To spend .25% before any other fees are added is just wrong." } ]

[ { "docid": "515063", "title": "", "text": "There isn't a general reason why you should not be able to do this, but it is hard to answer without knowing the specifics of your variable annuity. I would start by calling Hartford and asking them how to go about rolling your money to a different IRA and what fees would be assessed." }, { "docid": "287781", "title": "", "text": "Considering the combined accounts you're contributing $100 per month and they want $100 per year to administer them... that's 8.3% of your contributions gone to fees each year. To me, that's a definite no. Without getting in to bad mouthing the adviser for even making the suggestion, the scale of your account doesn't warrant a fee that high. Fees are very meaningful to the little fish investors. There are LOADS of IRA account providers. With that level of competition, there are several that have very reasonable account minimums, no annual maintenance fees, and a suite of no fee, no load, no commission, low expense ratio funds to choose from. Schwab, Fidelity and Vanguard come to mind. I know Schwab is running a big ad campaign right now as it's reduced some of it's already low expense ratios. If I were you, yes I would move the account because you can even get rid of the $10/year/account fee. But, no, I would not move it to a higher fee situation. In my opinion on a $3,600 account + $1,200 per year in contributions, you don't need advise. You need a good broad market low fee index fund, and enough discipline to understand that retirement is 25 years away so you keep contributing even when news is bad and the market is going down. In 10 years maybe talk to an adviser. Using the S&P500 index daily close historical data from calendar year 2016, considering first of the month monthly deposits and a starting balance of $3,600, you would come out at the end of the year with about $5,294. That's $494 in gain on your total contributions of $4,800. They'd take $100, that's about 20% of your gain. Compared to a no fee account with a reasonable expense ratio of 0.1% the fee would be just $5.30. Bearing in mind also that your $100 per year account will probably be invested in funds that also have an expense ratio fee structure further zapping gains. Further, you lose the compounding effect of the $100 fee over time which adds up to a significant of retirement funds considering a 25 year period. If all you did was put that $100 fee in to a 1% savings account each year for 25 years you'd end up with $2,850. (Considering the average 7% return of the S&P you'd have $6,964 on just your $100 per year fees) This is why you should be so vigilant about fees." }, { "docid": "526664", "title": "", "text": "\"For starting with zero knowledge you certainly did a great job on research as you hit on most of the important points with your question. It seems like you have already saved up around six months of expenses in savings so it is a great time to look into investing. The hardest part of your question is actually one of the most important details. Investing in a way that minimizes your taxes is generally more important, in the end, than what assets you actually invest in (as long as you invest even semi-reasonably). The problem is that the interaction between your home country's tax system and the U.S. tax system can be complex. It's probably (likely?) still worth maxing out your 401(k) (IRA, SEP, 529 accounts if you qualify) to avoid taxes, but like this question from an Indian investor it may be worth seeing an investment professional about this. If you do, see a fee-based professional preferably one familiar with your country. If tax-advantaged accounts are not a good deal for you or if you max them out, a discount broker is probably a good second option for someone willing to do a bit of research like you. With this money investing in broadly-diversified, low fee, index mutual funds or exchange traded funds is generally recommended. Among other benefits, diversified funds make sure that if any particular company fails you don't feel too much pain. The advantages of low fees are fairly obvious and one very good reason why so many people recommend Vanguard on this site. A common mix for someone your age is mostly stocks (local and international) and some bonds. Though with how you talk about risk you may prefer more bonds. Some people recommend spicing this up a bit with a small amount of real estate (REITs), sometimes even other assets. The right portfolio of the above can change a lot given the person. The above mentioned adviser and/or more research can help here. If, in the future, you start to believe you will go back to your home country soon that may throw much of this advice out the window and you should definitely reevaluate then. Also, if you are interested in the math/stats behind the above advice \"\"A Random Walk Down Wall Street\"\" is a light read and a good place to start. Investing makes for a very interesting and reasonably profitable math/stats problem.\"" }, { "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": "510730", "title": "", "text": "The original contribution of X to Roth IRA in your reasoning is a red herring. It doesn't exist, never happened. You recharacterized it, so what you did in reality is contribute X to Traditional IRA." }, { "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": "219208", "title": "", "text": "Many mutual fund companies (including Vanguard when I checked many years ago) require smaller minimum investments (often $1000) for IRA and 401k accounts. Some also allow for smaller investments into their funds for IRA accounts if you set up an automatic investment plan that contributes a fixed amount of money each month or each quarter. On the other hand, many mutual fund companies charge an annual account maintenance fee ($10? $20? $25? more?) per fund for IRA investments unless the balance in the fund is above a certain amount (often $5K or $10K$). This fee can be paid in cash or deducted from the IRA investment, and the former option is vastly better. So, diversification into multiple funds while starting out with an IRA is not that great an idea. It is far better to get diversification through investment in an S&P 500 Index fund (VFINX since you won't have access to @JoeTaxpayer's VIIIX) or a Total Market Index fund or, if you prefer, a Target Retirement Fund, and then branch out into other types of mutual funds as your investment grows through future contributions and dividends etc. To answer your question about fund minimums, the IRA account is separate from a taxable investment account, and the minimum rule applies to each separately. But, as noted above, there often are smaller minimums for tax-deferred accounts." }, { "docid": "218293", "title": "", "text": "Terminology aside. Your gains for this year in a mutual fund do seem low. These are things that can be quickly, and precisely answered through a conversation with your broker. You can request info on the performance of the fund you are invested in from the broker. They are required to disclose this information to you. They can give you the performance of the fund overall, as well as break down for you the specific stocks and bonds that make up the fund, and how they are performing. Talk about what kind of fund it is. If your projected retirement date is far in the future your fund should probably be on the aggressive side. Ask what the historic average is for the fund you're in. Ask about more aggressive funds, or less if you prefer a lower average but more stable performance. Your broker should be able to adequately, and in most cases accurately, set your expectation. Also ask about fees. Good brokerages charge reasonable fees, that are typically based on the gains the fund makes, not your total investment. Make sure you understand what you are paying. Even without knowing the management fees, your growth this year should be of concern. It is exceptionally low, in a year that showed good gains in many market sectors. Speak with your broker and decide if you will stick with this fund or have your IRA invest in a different fund. Finally JW8 makes a great point, in that your fund may perform well or poorly over any given short term, but long term your average should fall within the expected range for the type of fund you're invested in (though, not guaranteed). MOST importantly, actually talk to your broker. Get real answers, since they are as easy to come by as posting on stack." }, { "docid": "111350", "title": "", "text": "If you want to 'offset' current (2016) income, only deductible contribution to a traditional IRA does that. You can make nondeductible contributions to a trad IRA, and there are cases where that makes sense for the future and cases where it doesn't, but it doesn't give you a deduction now. Similarly a Roth IRA has possible advantages and disadvantages, but it does not have a deduction now. Currently he maximum is $5500 per person ($6500 if over age 50, but you aren't) which with two accounts (barely) covers your $10k. To be eligible to make this deductible traditional contribution, you must have earned income (employment or self-employment, but NOT the distribution from another IRA) at least the amount you want to contribute NOT have combined income (specifically MAGI, Modified Adjusted Gross Income) exceeding the phaseout limit (starts at $96,000 for married-joint) IF you were covered during the year (either you or your spouse) by an employer retirement plan (look at box 13 on your W-2's). With whom. Pretty much any bank, brokerage, or mutual fund family can handle IRAs. (To be technical, the bank's holding company will have an investment arm -- to you it will usually look like one operation with one name and logo, one office, one customer service department, one website etc, but the investment part must be legally separate from the insured banking part so you may notice a different name on your legal and tax forms.) If you are satisified with the custodian of the inherited IRA you already have, you might just stay with them -- they may not need as much paperwork, you don't need to meet and get comfortable with new people, you don't need to learn a new website. But if they sold you an annuity at your age -- as opposed to you inheriting an already annuitized IRA -- I'd want a lot of details before trusting they are acting in your best interests; most annuities sold to IRA holders are poor deals. In what. Since you want only moderate risk at least to start, and also since you are starting with a relatively small amount where minimum investments, expenses and fees can make more of an impact on your results, I would go with one or a few broad (= lower risk) index (= lower cost) fund(s). Every major fund familly also offers at least a few 'balanced' funds which give you a mixture of stocks and bonds, and sometimes some 'alternatives', in one fund. Remember this is not committing you forever; any reasonable custodian will allow you to move or spread to more-adventurous (but not wild and crazy) investments, which may be better for you in future years when you have some more money in the account and some more time to ponder your goals and options and comfort level." }, { "docid": "591495", "title": "", "text": "\"Your 401K (and IRA) is a legally distinct entity from yourself. In fact, it is a \"\"trust,\"\" and your Administrator is a \"\"trustee,\"\" while you are both creator and benefactor. This fact, and the 10% early withdrawal penalty, makes it immune from most judgments. The IRS can \"\"levy\"\" your 401K or IRA for back taxes, but must waive the 10% penalty (under the 1997 Tax Reform law). That gives them the power to do what most others can't. A \"\"tricky\"\" banker may persuade you to take money out of your 401K to pay the bank. If you do, s/he has won. But s/he can't go after your 401k.\"" }, { "docid": "72160", "title": "", "text": "\"If it was me, I would drop out. You can achieve a better kind of plan when there is no match. For example Fidelity has no fee accounts for IRAs and Roths with thousands of investment choices. You can also setup automatic drafts, so it simulates what happens with your 401K. Not an employee of Fidelity, just a happy customer. Some companies pass the 401K fees onto their employees, and all have limited investment choices. The only caveat is income. There are limits to the deductibility of IRAs and Roth contributions if you make \"\"too much\"\" money. For Roth's the income is quite high so most people can still make those contributions. About 90% of households earn less than $184K, when Roths start phasing out. Now about this 401K company, it looks like the labor department has jurisdiction over these kinds of plans and I would research on how to make a complaint. It would help if you and other employees have proof of the shenanigans. You might also consult a labor attourney, this might make a great class.\"" }, { "docid": "515203", "title": "", "text": "I was forced to give my bank permission to cover any overdrafts out of my savings accounts. Or pay the bank a fee. After 6 months I discovered they were still taking out a fee, when I confronted them they said it wasn't the overdraft fee it was just an administrative fee. Banks need to burn in hell." }, { "docid": "61524", "title": "", "text": "\"See if they offer a \"\"Target Date\"\" plan that automatically adjusts throughout your career to balance gains against preserving what you've already built up. You can adjust for more or less aggressive by selecting a plan with a later or sooner target date, respectively. (But check the administrative fees; higher fees can eat up a surprisingly large part of your growth since they're essentially subtracted from rate of return and thus get compounded.) If they don't have that option, or charge too much for it, then yes, you may want to adjust which plan your money is in over time; you can usually \"\"exchange\"\" between these plans at no cost and with no tax penalty. NOTE: The tax-advantaged 401(k) investments should be considered in the context of all your investments. This is one of the things an independent financial planner can help you with. As with other investment decisions, the best answer for you depends on your risk tolerance and your time horizon.\"" }, { "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": "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": "418275", "title": "", "text": "\"Hi Alex. I've been alerted you're seeking a better answer to this question. ;-) Please accept my apologies for not coming back to this question sooner – it got buried. :-/ No, in general you cannot make an early withdrawal penalty-free from a 403(b) account to use towards the purchase of a home. Withdrawals before age 59 1/2 are generally subject to the 10% early withdrawal penalty, on top of ordinary income tax. Some 403(b) plans may allow for a loan, but the availability and conditions vary by plan. If you'd consider a loan, you should check with your plan administrator or your plan's Summary Plan Description – often available at one's company intranet or HR web site. (I do contract work for an HR consulting firm that assists others in building such sites, and SPDs are usually something made available for download in a \"\"Retirement\"\" or \"\"Wealth\"\" section of such web sites.) Note that a loan from a 403(b) would need to be paid back into the plan over some period of time, e.g. 5 years, though I have come across examples of some plans that do permit a longer pay back period of 10, 15, even 30 years if the loan is used for a home purchase. But consider this article: The 403(b) Loan: The New Debtors Prison? Finally, to your last point: Yes, if you have an IRA, there are rules permitting withdrawal of up to $10,000 penalty-free for use towards the purchase of a first home. See page 53 in IRS Publication 590. There's also a good article at Fool.com: All About IRAs - For First Time Home Buyers. Such a withdrawal from a traditional IRA remains subject to ordinary income tax. If have a Roth IRA, you can withdraw free of income tax but you need to pay attention to the Roth IRA 5 Year Rule. Additional Resources:\"" }, { "docid": "293005", "title": "", "text": "The IRA custodian is supposed to pay the formation costs. If the IRA owner does it then there is a problem. In some structures, the IRA owner, custodian, trustee, administrator, etc may involve some of the same people. Pay very close attention to these words in the structure you are setting up." }, { "docid": "45053", "title": "", "text": "\"To answer, I'm going to make a few assumptions. First, the ideal scenario for a pre-tax 401(k) is the deposit goes in at a 25% tax rate (i.e. the employee is in that bracket) but withdrawn at 15%. This may be true for many, but not all. It's to illustrate a point. The SPY (S&P 500 index ETF) has a cost of .09% per year. If your 401(k) fees are anywhere near 1% per year total, over 10 years you've paid nearly 10% in fees, vs less than 1% for the ETF. Above, I suggest the ideal is that the 401(k) saves you 10% on your taxes, but if you pay 10% over the decade, the benefit is completely negated. I can add to the above that funds outside the retirement accounts give off dividends which are tax favored, and if you were to sell ETFs held over a year, they receive favorable cap-gains rates. The \"\"deposit to get the matching funds\"\" should always be good advice, it would take many years of high fees to destroy that. But even that seemingly reasonable 1% fee can make any other deposits a bad approach. Keep in mind, when retired you will have a zero bracket (in 2011, the combined standard deduction and exemption) adding to $9500, as well as a 10% bracket (the next $8500), so having some pretax money to take advantage of those brackets will help. Last, the average person changes jobs now and then. The ability to transfer the funds from the (bad) 401(k) to an IRA where you can control the investments is an option I'd not ignore in the analysis. I arbitrarily picked 1% to illustrate my thoughts. The same math will show a long time employee will get hurt by even .5%/yr if enough time passes. What are the fees in your 401(k)? Edit - Study of 401(k) fees - put out by the Dept of Labor. Unfortunately, it's over 10 years old, but it speaks to my point. Back then, even a 2000 participant plan with $60M in assets had 110 basis points (this is 1.1%) in fees on average. Whatever the distribution is, those above this average shouldn't even participate in their plans (except for matching) and those on the other side should look at their expenses. As Radix07 points out below, yes, for those just shy of retirement, the fee has less impact, and of course, they have a better idea if they will retire in a lower bracket. Those who have some catching up to do, may benefit despite the fees.\"" }, { "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": "402240", "title": "", "text": "Whether or not it's reasonable is a matter of opinion, but there are certainly cheaper options out there. It does seem strange to me that your credit union charges a percentage of your assets rather than a flat fee since they shouldn't have to do any more work based on how much money you have invested. I would look into rolling over your IRA to Vanguard or Fidelity. Neither charge administrative fees, and they offer no-load and no-transaction fee funds with low expenses. If you went with Fidelity directly, you'd be bypassing the middle man (your credit union) and their additional administrative fees. Vanguard tends to offer even cheaper funds." } ]

[ { "docid": "515063", "title": "", "text": "There isn't a general reason why you should not be able to do this, but it is hard to answer without knowing the specifics of your variable annuity. I would start by calling Hartford and asking them how to go about rolling your money to a different IRA and what fees would be assessed." }, { "docid": "289064", "title": "", "text": "\"If you are the sole owner (or just you and your spouse) and expect to be that way for a few years, consider the benefits of an individual 401(k). The contribution limits are higher than an IRA, and there are usually no fees involved. You can google \"\"Individual 401k\"\" and any of the major investment firms (Fidelity, Schwab, etc) will set one up free of charge. This option gives you a lot of freedom to decide how much money to put away without any plan management fees. The IRS site has all the details in an article titled One-Participant 401(k) Plans. Once you have employees, if you want to set up a retirement plan for them, you'll need to switch to a traditional, employer-sponsored 401k, which will involve some fees on your part. I seem to recall $2k/yr in fees when I had a sponsored 401(k) for my company, and I'm sure this varies widely. If you have employees and don't feel a need to have a company-wide retirement plan, you can set up your own personal IRA and simply not offer a company plan to your employees. The IRA contribution limits are lower than an individual 401(k), but setting it up is easy and fee-free. So basically, if you want to spend $0 on plan management fees, get an individual 401(k) if you are self-employed, or an IRA for yourself if you have employees.\"" }, { "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": "418275", "title": "", "text": "\"Hi Alex. I've been alerted you're seeking a better answer to this question. ;-) Please accept my apologies for not coming back to this question sooner – it got buried. :-/ No, in general you cannot make an early withdrawal penalty-free from a 403(b) account to use towards the purchase of a home. Withdrawals before age 59 1/2 are generally subject to the 10% early withdrawal penalty, on top of ordinary income tax. Some 403(b) plans may allow for a loan, but the availability and conditions vary by plan. If you'd consider a loan, you should check with your plan administrator or your plan's Summary Plan Description – often available at one's company intranet or HR web site. (I do contract work for an HR consulting firm that assists others in building such sites, and SPDs are usually something made available for download in a \"\"Retirement\"\" or \"\"Wealth\"\" section of such web sites.) Note that a loan from a 403(b) would need to be paid back into the plan over some period of time, e.g. 5 years, though I have come across examples of some plans that do permit a longer pay back period of 10, 15, even 30 years if the loan is used for a home purchase. But consider this article: The 403(b) Loan: The New Debtors Prison? Finally, to your last point: Yes, if you have an IRA, there are rules permitting withdrawal of up to $10,000 penalty-free for use towards the purchase of a first home. See page 53 in IRS Publication 590. There's also a good article at Fool.com: All About IRAs - For First Time Home Buyers. Such a withdrawal from a traditional IRA remains subject to ordinary income tax. If have a Roth IRA, you can withdraw free of income tax but you need to pay attention to the Roth IRA 5 Year Rule. Additional Resources:\"" }, { "docid": "427365", "title": "", "text": "What you want is a position transfer, likely by ACATS. This is a transfer from one IRA to another without having to liquidate positions to do so. In effect, the brokerage firm is just transferring records from your existing IRA to your new IRA. You will need to watch out to make sure your new IRA account can hold your positions for this to work. For example, some brokerages allow you to hold fractional shares but others don't. (The fractional share amounts would be sold automatically prior to transfer.) Another example might be different fund families could be allowed between different brokerages. The general process is open your new IRA account, initiate the ACATS xfer from your new account, your old IRA account brokerage sends the positions over, and after a week or so your new IRA brokerage notifies you that everything is transferred. I've switched IRAs a couple times via this mechanism and never been charged a fee, but I've always stuck with the larger brokerages like Fidelity, TD Ameritrade, and Interactive Brokers." }, { "docid": "111350", "title": "", "text": "If you want to 'offset' current (2016) income, only deductible contribution to a traditional IRA does that. You can make nondeductible contributions to a trad IRA, and there are cases where that makes sense for the future and cases where it doesn't, but it doesn't give you a deduction now. Similarly a Roth IRA has possible advantages and disadvantages, but it does not have a deduction now. Currently he maximum is $5500 per person ($6500 if over age 50, but you aren't) which with two accounts (barely) covers your $10k. To be eligible to make this deductible traditional contribution, you must have earned income (employment or self-employment, but NOT the distribution from another IRA) at least the amount you want to contribute NOT have combined income (specifically MAGI, Modified Adjusted Gross Income) exceeding the phaseout limit (starts at $96,000 for married-joint) IF you were covered during the year (either you or your spouse) by an employer retirement plan (look at box 13 on your W-2's). With whom. Pretty much any bank, brokerage, or mutual fund family can handle IRAs. (To be technical, the bank's holding company will have an investment arm -- to you it will usually look like one operation with one name and logo, one office, one customer service department, one website etc, but the investment part must be legally separate from the insured banking part so you may notice a different name on your legal and tax forms.) If you are satisified with the custodian of the inherited IRA you already have, you might just stay with them -- they may not need as much paperwork, you don't need to meet and get comfortable with new people, you don't need to learn a new website. But if they sold you an annuity at your age -- as opposed to you inheriting an already annuitized IRA -- I'd want a lot of details before trusting they are acting in your best interests; most annuities sold to IRA holders are poor deals. In what. Since you want only moderate risk at least to start, and also since you are starting with a relatively small amount where minimum investments, expenses and fees can make more of an impact on your results, I would go with one or a few broad (= lower risk) index (= lower cost) fund(s). Every major fund familly also offers at least a few 'balanced' funds which give you a mixture of stocks and bonds, and sometimes some 'alternatives', in one fund. Remember this is not committing you forever; any reasonable custodian will allow you to move or spread to more-adventurous (but not wild and crazy) investments, which may be better for you in future years when you have some more money in the account and some more time to ponder your goals and options and comfort level." }, { "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": "314988", "title": "", "text": "\"Be very careful with this. When we tried this with furniture, they charged an \"\"administrative\"\" fee to setup the account. I believe it was about $75. So if you defer interest for one year on a $1000 purchase and pay a $75 administrative fee, it's 7.5% interest. Also, they don't always send you a bill when it's due, they just let you go over the date when you could have paid it without paying interest, and then you owe interest from the date of purchase. These plans are slimy. Be careful.\"" }, { "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": "299690", "title": "", "text": "\"As other people have indicated, traditional IRAs are tax deductable for a particular year. Please note, though, that traditional IRAs are tax deferred (not tax-free) accounts, meaning that you'll have to pay taxes on any money you take out later regardless of why you're making the withdrawal. (A lot of people mistakenly call them tax free, which they're not). There is no such thing as a \"\"tax-free\"\" retirement account. Really, in terms of Roth vs. Traditional IRAs, it's \"\"pay now or pay later.\"\" With the exception of special circumstances like this, I recommend investing exclusively in Roth IRAs for money that you expect to grow much (or that you expect to produce substantial income over time). Just to add a few thoughts on what to actually invest in once you open your IRA, I strongly agree with the advice that you invest mostly in low-cost mutual funds or index funds. The advantage of an open-ended mutual fund is that it's easier to purchase them in odd increments and you may be able to avoid at least some purchase fees, whereas with an ETF you have to buy in multiples of that day's asking price. For example, if you were investing $500 and the ETF costs $200 per share, you could only purchase 2 shares, leaving $100 uninvested (minus whatever fee your broker charged for the purchase). The advantage of an ETF is that it's easy to buy or sell quickly. Usually, when you add money to a mutual fund, it'll take a few days for it to hit your account, and when you want to sell it'll similarly take a few days for you to get your money; when I buy an ETF the transaction can occur almost instantly. The fees can also be lower (if the ETF is just a passive index fund). Also, there's a risk with open-ended mutual funds that if too many people pull money out at once the managers could be forced to sell stocks at an unfavorable price.\"" }, { "docid": "68609", "title": "", "text": "\"I was told if I moved my 401k into a Roth IRA that school purposes is one reasons you can withdraw money without having to pay a tax. Incorrect. You will need to pay tax on the amount converted, since a 401(k) is pre-tax and a Roth IRA is after-tax. It will be added to your regular income, so you will pay tax at your marginal tax rate. is there any hidden tax or fee at all for withdrawing money from a Roth IRA for educational purposes? You still will need to pay the tax on the amount converted, but you'll avoid the 10% penalty for early withdrawal. I know that tuition, books and fees are covered for educational purposes. Can I take out of my Roth IRA for living expenses while I'm attending school? Rent, gas, food, etc... Room and board, yes, so long as you are half-time, but not gas/food Possibly only room and board for staying on-campus, but I'm not certain, although I doubt you could call your normal house payment \"\"education expense\"\" with my 401k being smaller, would it just be better to go ahead and cash the whole thing and just pay the tax and use it for whatever I need it for? What is the tax if I just decide to cash the whole thing in? You pay your marginal tax rate PLUS a 10% penalty for early withdrawal. So no, this is probably not a wise move financially unless you're on the verge of bankruptcy or foreclosure (where distress costs are much higher then the 10% penalty) I can't answer the other questions regarding grants; I would talk to the financial aid department at your school. Bottom line, transferring your 401(k) is very likely a bad idea unless you can afford to pay the tax in cash (meaning without borrowing). My advice would be to leave your 401(k) alone (it's meant for retirement not for school or living expenses) Ideally, you should pay for as much as you can out of cash flow, and don't take out more student loans. That may mean taking fewer classes, getting another part time job, finding a different (cheaper) school, applying for more grants and scholarships, etc. I would not in ANY circumstance cash out your 401(k) to pay for school. You'll be much worse off in the long run, and there are much cheaper ways to get money.\"" }, { "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": "508219", "title": "", "text": "\"Basically, the idea of an IRA is that the money is earned by you and would normally be taxed at the individual rate, but the government is allowing you to avoid paying the taxes on it now by instead putting it in the account. This \"\"tax deferral\"\" encourages retirement savings by reducing your current taxable income (providing a short-term \"\"carrot\"\"). However, the government will want their cut; specifically, when you begin withdrawing from that account, the principal which wasn't taxed when you put it in will be taxed at the current individual rate when you take it out. When you think about it, that's only fair; you didn't pay taxes on it when it came out of your paycheck, so you should pay that tax once you're withdrawing it to live on. Here's the rub; the interest is also taxed at the individual rate. At the time, that was a good thing; the capital gains rate in 1976 (when the Regular IRA was established) was 35%, the highest it's ever been. Now, that's not looking so good because the current cap gains rate is only 15%. However, these rates rise and fall, cap gains more than individual rates, and so by contributing to a Traditional IRA you simplify your tax bill; the principal and interest is taxed at the individual rate as if you were still making a paycheck. A Roth IRA is basically the government trying to get money now by giving up money later. You pay the marginal individual rate on the contributions as you earn them (it becomes a \"\"post-tax deduction\"\") but then that money is completely yours, and the kicker is that the government won't tax the interest on it if you don't withdraw it before retirement age. This makes Roths very attractive to retirement investors as a hedge against higher overall tax rates later in life. If you think that, for any reason, you'll be paying more taxes in 30 years than you would be paying for the same money now, you should be investing in a Roth. A normal (non-IRA) investment account, at first, seems to be the worst of both worlds; you pay individual tax on all earned wages that you invest, then capital gains on the money your investment earns (stock gains and dividends, bond interest, etc) whenever you cash out. However, a traditional account has the most flexibility; you can keep your money in and take your money out on a timeline you choose. This means you can react both to market moves AND to tax changes; when a conservative administration slashes tax rates on capital gains, you can cash out, pay that low rate on the money you made from your account, and then the money's yours to spend or to reinvest. You can, if you're market- and tax-savvy, use all three of these instruments to your overall advantage. When tax rates are high now, contribute to a traditional IRA, and then withdraw the money during your retirement in times where individual tax rates are low. When tax rates are low (like right now), max out your Roth contributions, and use that money after retirement when tax rates are high. Use a regular investment account as an overage to Roth contributions when taxes are low; contribute when the individual rate is low, then capitalize and reinvest during times when capital gains taxes are low (perhaps replacing a paycheck deduction in annual contributions to a Roth, or you can simply fold it back into the investment account). This isn't as good as a Roth but is better than a Traditional; by capitalizing at an advantageous time, you turn interest earned into principal invested and pay a low tax on it at that time to avoid a higher tax later. However, the market and the tax structure have to coincide to make ordinary investing pay off; you may have bought in in the early 90s, taking advantage of the lowest individual rates since the Great Depression. While now, capital gains taxes are the lowest they've ever been, if you cash out you may not be realizing much of a gain in the first place.\"" }, { "docid": "60119", "title": "", "text": "Can't see why would you need to track the sources of the original funds. Can't think of a reason not to consolidate, if at all it will only make the management of your IRA more convenient, and may be even cheaper (if the fees depend on the account value...)." }, { "docid": "424427", "title": "", "text": "Edited in response to JoeTaxpayer's comment and OP Tim's additional question. To add to and clarify a little what littleadv has said, and to answer OP Tim's next question: As far as the IRS is concerned, you have at most one Individual Retirement Account of each type (Traditional, Roth) though the money in each IRA can be invested with as many different custodians (brokerages, banks, etc.) and different investments as you like. Thus, the maximum $5000 ($6000 for older folks) that you can contribute each year can be split up and invested any which way you like, and when in later years you take a Required Minimum Distribution (RMD) from a Traditional IRA, you can get the money by selling just one of the investments, or from several investments; all that the IRS cares is that the total amount that is distributed to you is at least as large as the RMD. An important corollary is that the balance in your IRA is the sum total of the value of all the investments that various custodians are holding for you in IRA accounts. There is no loss in an IRA until every penny has been withdrawn from every investment in your IRA and distributed to you, thus making your IRA balance zero. As long as you have a positive balance, there is no loss: everything has to come out. After the last distribution from your Roth IRA (the one that empties your entire Roth IRA, no matter where it is invested and reduces your Roth IRA balance (see definition above) to zero), total up all the amounts that you have received as distributions from your Roth IRA. If this is less than the total amount of money you contributed to your Roth IRA (this includes rollovers from a Traditional IRA or Roth 401k etc., but not the earnings within the Roth IRA that you re-invested inside the Roth IRA), you have a loss that can be deducted on Schedule A as a Miscellaneous Deduction subject to the 2% AGI limit. This 2% is not a cap (in the sense that no more than 2% of your AGI can be deducted in this category) but rather a threshold: you can only deduct whatever part of your total Miscellaneous Deductions exceeds 2% of your AGI. Not many people have Miscellaneous Deductions whose total exceeds 2% of their AGI, and so they end up not being able to deduct anything in this category. If you ever made nondeductible contributions to your Traditional IRA because you were ineligible to make a deductible contribution (income too high, pension plan coverage at work etc), then the sum of all these contributions is your basis in your Traditional IRA. Note that your deductible contributions, if any, are not part of the basis. The above rules apply to your basis in your Traditional IRA as well. After the last distribution from your Traditional IRA (the one that empties all your Traditional IRA accounts and reduces your Traditional IRA balance to zero), total up all the distributions that you received (don't forget to include the nontaxable part of each distribution that represents a return of the basis). If the sum total is less than your basis, you have a loss that can be deducted on Schedule A as a Miscellaneous Deduction subject to the 2% AGI threshold. You can only deposit cash into an IRA and take a distribution in cash from an IRA. Now, as JoeTaxpayer points out, if your IRA owns stock, you can take a distribution by having the shares transferred from your IRA account in your brokerage to your personal account in the brokerage. However, the amount of the distribution, as reported by the brokerage to the IRS, is the value of the shares transferred as of the time of the transfer, (more generally the fair market value of the property that is transferred out of the IRA) and this is the amount you report on your income tax return. Any capital gain or loss on those shares remains inside the IRA because your basis (in your personal account) in the shares that came out of the IRA is the amount of the distribution. If you sell these shares at a later date, you will have a (taxable) gain or loss depending on whether you sold the shares for more or less than your basis. In effect, the share transfer transaction is as if you sold the shares in the IRA, took the proceeds as a cash distribution and immediately bought the same shares in your personal account, but you saved the transaction fees for the sale and the purchase and avoided paying the difference between the buying and selling price of the shares as well as any changes in these in the microseconds that would have elapsed between the execution of the sell-shares-in-Tim's-IRA-account, distribute-cash-to-Tim, and buy-shares-in-Tim's-personal account transactions. Of course, your broker will likely charge a fee for transferring ownership of the shares from your IRA to you. But the important point is that any capital gain or loss within the IRA cannot be used to offset a gain or loss in your taxable accounts. What happens inside the IRA stays inside the IRA." }, { "docid": "201856", "title": "", "text": "\"This is going to vary from insurer to insurer, and likely year to year. Typically an insurer will set what it calls the guaranteed rate of return for whole life policies and will allow you to take loans against the cash value of your policy at some adjustment to that rate. Also typically you pay the interest back to yourself less some small administrative fee. Some insurers have whole life policies called something along the lines of an \"\"accelerated cash value\"\" policy or a \"\"high early cash value\"\" policy, stick to these ones. The commission structure is less favorable to the agent/broker but much more of your premium is recognized as cash value earlier. The benefit (for lack of a better word) to taking a loan against your own cash value over taking a loan from a bank is the severely reduced process. There's no underwriting for your loan like there would be from a bank. If you're laid off maybe you can't get a loan from a bank but you can scoop some money out of your policy on a loan basis or alternatively you can just surrender the policy and take the accrued cash value. Many people will poo-poo the value of whole life, but fact of the matter is your underwriting status can change in the course of your life and it's possible that in the future you won't be able to buy any life insurance. There's nothing wrong with having something permanent to supplement your larger term policies. Personally, I view diversification as having money in a lot of different places. This strategy is probably not as efficient as it could, but I don't like the idea of having all my eggs in one basket. I have cash in a lock box at home, cash savings, CDs, a personal loan portfolio, bitcoins, index funds, individual stocks, commodity etfs, and bond funds spread in traditional 401(k), ROTH IRA and regular taxable accounts spread out to 6 different institutions. I don't personally own any whole life, but I'll probably buy a small policy before my next 6-month birthday; I might as well put some money there too. All of this is to say, do not put all of your money in a whole life policy, and do not buy all of your life insurance needs via whole life.\"" }, { "docid": "238360", "title": "", "text": "The investments offered in 401K are usually limited to a selection of mutual funds offered by a 401K provider. The 401K providers and the mutual funds charge fees. The mutual fund industry has a lobbying group that will push for increased 401K contributions to direct money into their mutual funds to collect fees. The top 401 K provider in 2005 was fidelity. It managed $337 billion in 401Ks of which $334 billion was directed into mutual funds. Although I would have to use some of the same providers to open an IRA, I would not have to invest in the providers' mutual funds when I open an IRA. I can buy a stock and hold onto it for 10, 20, 50 years inside of my IRA. Thus, the only fee the investment company would collect from me would be from when I purchased the stock and when I sold the stock. Not nearly as profitable as mutual fund fees." }, { "docid": "92941", "title": "", "text": "Former pension/retirement/401(k) administrator here. 1. If you don't want to bother with maintaining your own investments, you can 'roll-over' your existing 401(k) into *your new company's 401(k) plan*. Then you will choose your investments in the new plan, you will be 100% vested in 'rollover account'. 2. If you want control over your own investments (recommended!) you can roll over your existing 401(k) into an IRA (Individual Retirement Account). Then *your entire account* will go into your new IRA. 3. You can take part, or all, of your existing account as cash, paid directly to you. Note that this will trigger *20% mandatory Federal Withholding* on whatever goes straight to you. So some of your money is going to the IRS." }, { "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": "165544", "title": "", "text": "Shares are partial ownership of the company. A company can issue (not create) more of the shares it owns at any time, to anyone, at any price -- subject to antitrust and similar regulations. If they wanted to, for example, flat-out give 10% of their retained interest to charity, they could do so. It shouldn't substantially affect the stock's trading for others unless there's a completely irrational demand for shares." } ]

[ { "docid": "137478", "title": "", "text": "No. Not directly. A company issues stock in order to raise capital for building its business. Once the initial shares are sold to the public, the company doesn't receive additional funds from future transactions of those shares of stock between the public. However, the company could issue more shares at the new higher price to raise more capital." }, { "docid": "403701", "title": "", "text": "This is really an extended comment on the last paragraph of @BenMiller's answer. When (the manager of) a mutual fund sells securities that the fund holds for a profit, or receives dividends (stock dividends, bond interest, etc.), the fund has the option of paying taxes on that money (at corporate rates) and distributing the rest to shareholders in the fund, or passing on the entire amount (categorized as dividends, qualified dividends, net short-term capital gains, and net long-term capital gains) to the shareholders who then pay taxes on the money that they receive at their own respective tax rates. (If the net gains are negative, i.e. losses, they are not passed on to the shareholders. See the last paragraph below). A shareholder doesn't have to reinvest the distribution amount into the mutual fund: the option of receiving the money as cash always exists, as does the option of investing the distribution into a different mutual fund in the same family, e.g. invest the distributions from Vanguard's S&P 500 Index Fund into Vanguard's Total Bond Index Fund (and/or vice versa). This last can be done without needing a brokerage account, but doing it across fund families will require the money to transit through a brokerage account or a personal account. Such cross-transfers can be helpful in reducing the amounts of money being transferred in re-balancing asset allocations as is recommended be done once or twice a year. Those investing in load funds instead of no-load funds should keep in mind that several load funds waive the load for re-investment of distributions but some funds don't: the sales charge for the reinvestment is pure profit for the fund if the fund was purchased directly or passed on to the brokerage if the fund was purchased through a brokerage account. As Ben points out, a shareholder in a mutual fund must pay taxes (in the appropriate categories) on the distributions from the fund even though no actual cash has been received because the entire distribution has been reinvested. It is worth keeping in mind that when the mutual fund declares a distribution (say $1.22 a share), the Net Asset Value per share drops by the same amount (assuming no change in the prices of the securities that the fund holds) and the new shares issued are at this lower price. That is, there is no change in the value of the investment: if you had $10,000 in the fund the day before the distribution was declared, you still have $10,000 after the distribution is declared but you own more shares in the fund than you had previously. (In actuality, the new shares appear in your account a couple of days later, not immediately when the distribution is declared). In short, a distribution from a mutual fund that is re-invested leads to no change in your net assets, but does increase your tax liability. Ditto for a distribution that is taken as cash or re-invested elsewhere. As a final remark, net capital losses inside a mutual fund are not distributed to shareholders but are retained within the fund to be written off against future capital gains. See also this previous answer or this one." }, { "docid": "587137", "title": "", "text": "This is an old question that has an accepted answer, but it has gotten bumped due to an edit and the answers given are incorrect. I am assuming this means that every other Friday, the company is going into the open public market, buying those shares and then giving it out to the employees. No. Companies will internally hold shares that it intends to offer employees as additional compensation. There are no open market transactions, so the market price of the stock does not change (at least not due to buying pressure). The only net effect is an equivalent expense for the compensation, but that should already be accounted for in the share price as normal operating expenses. These share may come through an initial buyback from the market, but more common is that when companies issue new shares they keep some internally for exactly this situation. If they issued new shares every pay period, it would dilute the existing shares several times a quarter which would be difficult to account for." }, { "docid": "162612", "title": "", "text": "You go public to raise money, to invest in the business and/or pay off the existing shareholders. It's really as simple as that. The advantage of being public is that your shares can easily be bought and sold, and so you can issue and sell new ones and your existing shareholders can sell out if they want to. The disadvantage is that you are much more tightly regulated, with more disclosure requirements, and also that you are exposed to much more pressure from your shareholders to maintain and increase your share price." }, { "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": "345129", "title": "", "text": "Market Capitalization is the equity value of a company. It measures the total value of the shares available for trade in public markets if they were immediately sold at the last traded market price. Some people think it is a measure of a company's net worth, but it can be a misleading for a number of reasons. Share price will be biased toward recent earnings and the Earnings Per Share (EPS) metric. The most recent market price only reflects the lowest price one market participant is willing to sell for and the highest price another market participant is willing to buy for, though in a liquid market it does generally reflect the current consensus. In an imperfect market (for example with a large institutional purchase or sale) prices can diverge widely from the consensus price and when multiplied by outstanding shares, can show a very distorted market capitalization. It is also a misleading number when comparing two companies' market capitalization because while some companies raise the money they need by selling shares on the markets, others might prefer debt financing from private lenders or sell bonds on the market, or some other capital structure. Some companies sell preferred shares or non-voting shares along with the traditional shares that exist. All of these factors have to be considered when valuing a company. Large-cap companies tend to have lower but more stable growth than small cap companies which are still expanding into new markets because of their smaller size." }, { "docid": "162454", "title": "", "text": "Yes. Instead of paying a cash dividend to shareholders, the company grants existing shareholders new shares at a previously determined price. I'm sorry, but scrip issues are free (for all ordinary shareholders) and are in proportion to existing share holding. No payment is required from shareholders. So instead of having 10 $1 shares, the shareholder (if accepts) now could have 20 50p shares, if it was a one-for-one scrip issue." }, { "docid": "328479", "title": "", "text": "There's not usually a point to issuing new stock as a dividend, because if you issue new stock, it dilutes the existing shareholders by the exact same amount as the dividend: so now they have a few more shares, great, but they're worth the exact same amount. (This assumes that all stockholders are equal. If there are multiple share classes, or people whose rights to a stock are tied to the stock price in some manner - options, warrants, or something - then a properly structured stock dividend could serve to enrich one set of shareholders and other rights-holders at the expense of another. But this is usually illegal.) If this sort of dividends are popular in China, I suspect it is due to some freaky regulatory or tax-related circumstances which are not present in the United States markets. China is kind of notorious for having unusual capital controls, limitations on the exchange of currency, and markets which are not very transparent." }, { "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": "149493", "title": "", "text": "\"For this to work, those who control the dilution must also control their salaries because the only way for them to be paid off when it's the corporation itself selling is to gain access to the proceeds. When a corporation sells newly issued equity, the corporation itself owns the money. To at least have the appearance of propriety, the scammers must be paid those proceeds. Both actions imply that the board is captured by the scammers. There are many corporations that seem to do this even with persistently large market capitalizations. The key difference between this and pump-and-dump is that its a fraudulent group of investors selling in this case instead of the corporation itself. A detailed simple example Corporations are mandated by law to be little oligarchies; although, \"\"republic\"\" is now becoming more appropriate with all of the new shareholder rights. A corporation is controlled at root by the board of directors who are elected by the shareholders. The board has no direct operational control, as that is left to the \"\"king\"\", the CEO; however, the board does control what everyone wants access to: the money. Board members have all sorts of legal qualitative mandates on how to behave, and they've functioned fairly decently efficiently over the long run, but there are definitely some bad apples. Boards are somewhat intransigent since it's difficult to hold board elections, and usually only specific board members are put up for election by a shareholder vote, so a bad one has the potential to really get stuck in there. Once a bad one is in there, they don't care because they know it will be tough to get them out, so they run roughshod over the company's purse. Only the board can take action on major funding such as the CEO's operating budget, board compensation, financing, investment, etc, some with shareholder approval, some without. The corporation itself owns all of those assets, but the board controls them. In this example, they scheme with most likely the top executive, but a rubber stamp top executive could allow a lower rung to scheme with the board, but the board is always constant until the law is changed. Because there's no honor amongst thieves, the board votes which can require some combination of executive and shareholder approval are taken very close together: sell shares, increase salaries to key executive schemers, increase board compensation. The trusting shareholders believe this is in the best interests of the company at large so go along. So the money flows from existing & new shareholders to the corporation now controlled by a malicious board and then finally to the necessary malicious executive and the vital malicious board.\"" }, { "docid": "79105", "title": "", "text": "\"Thanks for your question Dai. The circumstances under which these buyouts can occur is based on the US takeover code and related legislation, as well as the laws of the state in which the company is incorporated. It's not actually the case that a company such as Dell needs to entice or force every shareholder to sell. What is salient is the conditions under which the bidder can acquire a controlling interest in the target company and effect a merger. This usually involves acquiring at least a majority of the outstanding shares. Methods of Acquisition The quickest way for a company to be acquired is the \"\"One Step\"\" method. In this case, the bidder simply calls for a shareholder vote. If the shareholders approve the terms of the offer, the deal can go forward (excepting any legal or other impediments to the deal). In the \"\"Two-Step\"\" method, which is the case with Dell, the bidder issues a \"\"tender offer\"\" which you mentioned, where the current shareholders can agree to sell their shares to the bidder, usually at a premium. If the bidder secures the acceptance of 90% of the shares, they can immediately go forward with what is called a \"\"short form\"\" merger, and can effect the merger without ever calling for a shareholder meeting or vote. Any stockholders that hold out and do not want to sell are \"\"squeezed out\"\" once the merger has been effected, but retain the right to redeem their outstanding shares at the valuation of the tender offer. In the case you mentioned, if shareholders controlling 25% of the shares (not necessarily 25% of the shareholders) were to oppose the tender offer, there would be serveral alternatives. If the bidder did not have at least 51% of the shares secured, they would likely either increase the valuation of the tender offer, or choose to abandon the takeover. If the bidder had 51% or more of the shares secured, but not 90%, they could issue a proxy statement, call for a shareholder meeting and a vote to effect the merger. Or, they could increase the tender offer in order to try to secure 90% of the shares in order to effect the short form merger. If the bidder is able to secure even 51% of the shares, either through the proxy or by way of a controlling interest along with a consortium of other shareholders, they are able to effect the merger and squeeze out the remaining shareholders at the price of the tender offer (majority rules!). Some states' laws specify additional circumstances under which the bidder can force the current shareholders to exchange their shares for cash or converted shares, but not Delaware, where Dell is incorporate. There are also several special cases. With a \"\"top-up\"\" provision, if the company's board/management is in favor of the merger, they can simply issue more and more shares until the bidder has acquired 90% of the total outstanding shares needed for the \"\"short form\"\" merger. Top-up provisions are very common in cases of a tender offer. If the board/management opposes the merger, this is considered a \"\"hostile\"\" takover, and they can effect \"\"poison pill\"\" measures which have the opposite effect of a \"\"top-up\"\" and dilute the bidders percent of outstanding shares. However, if the bidder can secure 51% of the shares, they can simply vote to replace the current board, who can then replace the current management, such that the new board and management will put into place whatever provisions are amenable to the bidder. In the case of a short form merger or a vote to effect a merger, the shareholders who do not wish to sell have the right to sell at the tender price, or they can oppose the deal on legal grounds by arguing that the valuation of the tender offer is materially unfair. However, there are very few cases which I'm aware of where this type of challenge has been successful. However, they do not have the power to stop the merger, which has been agreed to by the majority of the shareholders. This is similar to how when the president is elected, the minority voters can't stop the new president from being inaugurated, or how you can be affected if you own a condo and the condo owners' association votes to change the rules in a way you don't like. Tough luck for you if you don't like it! If you want more detail, I'd recommend checking out a web guide from 2011 here as well as related articles from the Harvard Law blog here. I hope that helps!\"" }, { "docid": "235910", "title": "", "text": "As Mhoran said, the risks of buying a bankrupt company are huge, and even successful bankruptcy turnarounds don't involve keeping the same stock. For instance, the GM bankruptcy was resolved by the company more or less selling all its valuable assets (brands, factories, inventory) to a new version of itself, using that money to pay off what liabilities it could, and then dissolving. The new company then issued new stock, and you had to buy the new stock to see it rise; the old stock became worthless. AA could have gone the same way; Delta could have bought it out of bankruptcy and consumed it outright, with any remaining shareholders being paid off at market value. That's probably the best the market was hoping for. Instead, the deal is a much more equal merger; AMR brings a very large airport network and aircraft fleet to the table, and Delta brings its cash, an also-considerable fleet and network, and a management team that's kept that airline solvent. The stockholders, therefore, expect to be paid off at a much higher per-share price, either in a new combined stock, in Delta stock, or in cash." }, { "docid": "186643", "title": "", "text": "In most cases , preferential sharesholders are paid dividends first before common shareholders are paid . In the event of a company bankruptcy , preferential shareholders have the right to be paid first before common shareholders. In exchange for these benefits , preferential shareholders do not have any voting rights. The issuing of preferential shares has no impact on share prices or issuing of bonuses , it is a mere coincidence that the stock price went up" }, { "docid": "242850", "title": "", "text": "\"As a common shareholder, why would I want to approve an increase in the number of authorized shares?\"\" Because it could increase the value of your existing shares. Companies sell new shares to raise capital, and they use capital to (among other things) expand. If Whole Foods issues new shares and uses the capital to opens new stores, then profit could increase enough to offset the dilution effect, and your stock price will go up. You should ask yourself: What areas is is your company of choice planning on expanding into? Will they do well there? Are there better ways for the company to raise capital (debt, cash in hand, cut expenses elsewhere, etc)? If you think that the management has a good plan for expanding, then authorizing new shares makes good sense for you personally.\"" }, { "docid": "259904", "title": "", "text": "If you are looking to re-invest it in the same company, there is really no difference. Please be aware that when a company announces dividend, you are not the only person receiving the dividend. The millions of share holders receive the same amount that you did as dividend, and of course, that money is not falling from the sky. The company pays it from their profits. So the day a dividend is announced, it is adjusted in the price of the share. The only reason why you look for dividend in a company is when you need liquidity. If a company does not pay you dividend, it means that they are usually using the profits to re-invest it in the business which you are anyway going to do with the dividend that you receive. (Unless its some shady company which is only established on paper. Then they might use it to feed their dog:p). To make it simpler lets assume you have Rs.500 and you want to start a company which requires Rs 1000 in capital : - 1.) You issue 5 shares worth Rs 100 each to the public and take Rs 100 for each share. Now you have Rs 1000 to start your company. 2.) You make a profit of Rs 200. 3.) Since you own majority of the shares you get to make the call whether to pay Rs.200 in dividend, or re-invest it in the business. Case 1:- You had issued 10 shares and your profit is Rs 200. You pay Rs. 20 each to every share holder. Since you owned 5 shares, you get 5*20 that is Rs.100 and you distribute the remaining to your 5 shareholders and expect to make the same or higher profit next year. Your share price remains at Rs.100 and you have your profits in cash. Case 2:- You think that this business is awesome and you should put more money into it to make more. You decide not to pay any dividend and invest the entire profit into the business. That way your shareholders do not receive anything from you but they get to share profit in the amazing business that you are doing. In this case your share price is Rs. 120 ((1000+200)/10) and all your profits are re-invested in the business. Now put yourself in the shareholders shoes and see which case suits you more. That is the company you should invest in. Please note: - It is very important to understand the business model of the company before you buy anything! Cheers," }, { "docid": "348445", "title": "", "text": "In short (pun intended), the shareholder lending the shares does not believe that the shares will fall, even though the potential investor does. The shareholder believes that the shares will rise. Because the two individuals believe that a different outcome will occur, they are able to make a trade. By using the available data in the market, they have arrived at a particular conclusion of the fair price for the trade, but each individual wants to be on the other side of it. Consider a simpler form of your question: Why would a shareholder agree to sell his/her shares? Why don't they just wait to sell, when the price is higher? After all, that is why the buyer wants to purchase the shares. On review, I realize I've only stated here why the original shareholder wouldn't simply sell and rebuy the share themselves (because they have a different view of the market). As to why they would actually allow the trade to occur - Zak (and other answers) point out that the shares being lent are compensated for by an initial fee on the transaction + the chance for interest during the period that the shares are owed for." }, { "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": "42558", "title": "", "text": "\"In its basic form, a corporation is a type of 'privileged democracy'. Instead of every citizen having a vote, votes are allocated on the basis of share ownership. In the most basic form, each share you own gives you 1 vote. In most public companies, very few shareholders vote [because their vote is statistically meaningless, and they have no particular insight into what they want in their Board]. This means that often the Board is voted in by a \"\"plurality\"\" [ie: 10%-50%] of shareholders who are actually large institutions (like investment firms or pension funds which own many shares of the company). Now, what do shareholders actually \"\"vote on\"\"? You vote to elect individuals to be members of the Board of Directors (\"\"BoD\"\"). The BoD is basically an overarching committee that theoretically steers the company in whatever way they feel best represents the shareholders (because if they do not represent the shareholders, they will get voted out at the next shareholder meeting). The Board members are typically senior individuals with experience in either that industry or a relevant one (ie: someone who was a top lawyer may sit on the BoD and be a member of some type of 'legal issues committee'). These positions typically pay some amount of money, but often they are seen as a form of high prestige for someone nearing / after retirement. It is not typically a full time job. It will typically pay far, far less than the role of CEO at the same company. The BoD meets periodically, to discuss issues regarding the health of the company. Their responsibility is to act in the interests of the shareholders, but they themselves do not necessarily own shares in the company. Often the BoD is broken up into several committees, such as an investment committee [which reviews and approves large scale projects], a finance committee [which reviews and approves large financial decisions, such as how to get funding], an audit committee [which reviews the results of financial statements alongside the external accountants who audit them], etc. But arguably the main role of the BoD is to hire the Chief Executive Officer and possibly other high level individuals [typically referred to as the C-Suite executives, ie Chief Financial Officer, Chief Operating Officer, etc.] The CEO is the Big Cheese, who then typically has authority to rule everyone below him/her. Typically there are things that the Big Cheese cannot do without approval from the board, like start huge investment projects requiring a lot of spending. So the Shareholders own the company [and are therefore entitled to receive all the dividends from profits the company earns] and elects members of the Board of Directors, the BoD oversees the company on the Shareholders' behalf, and the CEO acts based on the wishes of the BoD which hires him/her. So how do you get to be a member of the Board, or the CEO? You become a superstar in your industry, and go through a similar process as getting any other job. You network, you make contacts, you apply, you defend yourself in interviews. The shareholders will elect a Board who acts in their interests. And the Board will hire a CEO that they feel can carry out those interests. If you hold a majority of the shares in a company, you could elect enough Board members that you could control the BoD, and you could then be guaranteed to be hired as the CEO. If you own, say, 10% of the shares you will likely be able to elect a few people to the Board, but maybe not enough to be hired by the Board as the CEO. Short of owning a huge amount of a company, therefore, share ownership will not get you any closer to being the CEO.\"" }, { "docid": "545339", "title": "", "text": "Running for-profit business doesn't pressure those involved to make the best product, it pressures them to make the best profit. Making the best profit pressures those involved to produce the cheapest product that the market won't reject marked at the highest price the market won't reject. Private companies have the freedom to avoid or limit the effect of that pressure if they choose, and sacrifice some profit for quality and improved customer satisfaction (though many still choose profit). Public companies, who are eventually beholdent to shareholders who sole goal is profitability, are much less likely to avoid the pressures to increase profits at all costs; particularly in the age of day traders and CEO merry-go-round, long-term planning is very difficult when short-term profitability is on the line. A company that made one widget a year for $1 and sold that widget for $10 billion would be a very successful company from the profit standpoint, and would likely have an excellent share price if the business model looked secure for the next year or two. Competition helps alleviate this morass and pushes for better products and lower prices by upping the bar of what the market will reject over time - increase the available alternatives, and the features/quality/price scale shifts. The importance of having a level playing field, anti-monopoly laws and ensure that new players can come onto the scene is fundamental to capitalism working - otherwise those who hold monopoly positions will prevent competition from emerging and charge as much as is possible for the cheapest product people will still buy. This is of particular issue when not buying the product is a threat to one's life or safety (medical care, emergency services, food, etc)." } ]

[ { "docid": "297290", "title": "", "text": "\"There is a lot of interesting information that can be found in a fund's prospectus. I have found it very helpful to read books on the issue, one I just finished was \"\"The Boglehead's Guide to Investing\"\" which speaks mostly on mutual and index funds. Actively managed funds mean that someone is choosing which stocks to buy and which to sell. If they think a stock will be \"\"hot\"\" then they buy it. Research has shown that people cannot predict the stock market, which is why many people suggest index based funds. An index fund generally tracks a group of companies. Example: an index fund of the S&P 500 will try to mimic the returns that the S&P 500 has. Overall, managed funds are more expensive than index funds because the fund manager must be paid to manage it. Also, there is generally more buying and selling so that also increases the tax amount you would owe. What I am planning on doing is opening a Roth IRA with Vanguard, as their funds have incredibly low fees (0.2% on many). One of the most important things you do before you buy is to figure out your target allocation (% of stocks vs % of bonds). Once you figure that out then you can start narrowing down the funds that you wish to invest in.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "393693", "title": "", "text": "For the Roth the earnings: interest, dividends, capital gains distributions and capital gains are tax deferred. Which means that as long as the money stays inside of a Roth or is transferred/rolled over to another Roth there are no taxes due. In December many mutual funds distribute their gains. Let's say people invested in S&P500index fund receive a dividend of 1% of their account value. The investor in a non-retirement fund will be paying tax on that dividend in the Spring with their tax form. The Roth and IRA investors will not be paying tax on those dividends. The Roth investor never will, and the regular IRA investor will only pay taxes on it when they pull the money out." }, { "docid": "423754", "title": "", "text": "\"I don't think you have your head in the right space - you seem to be thinking of these lifecycle funds like they're an annuity or a pension, but they're not. They're an investment. Specifically, they're a mutual fund that will invest in a collection of other mutual funds, which in turn invest in stock and bonds. Stocks go up, and stocks go down. Bonds go up, and bonds go down. How much you'll have in this fund next year is unknowable, much less 32 years from now. What you can know, is that saving regularly over the next 32 years and investing it in a reasonable, and diversified way in a tax sheltered account like that Roth will mean you have a nice chunk of change sitting there when you retire. The lifecycle funds exist to help you with that \"\"reasonable\"\" and \"\"diversified\"\" bit.They're meant to be one stop shopping for a retirement portfolio. They put your money into a diversified portfolio, then \"\"age\"\" the portfolio allocations over time to make it go from a high risk, (potentially) high reward allocation now to a lower risk, lower reward portfolio as you approach retirement. The idea is is that you want to shoot for making lots of money now, but when you're older, you want to focus more on keeping the money you have. Incidentally, kudos for getting into seriously saving for retirement when you're young. One of the biggest positive effects you can have on how much you retire with is simply time. The more time your money can sit there, the better. At 26, if you're putting away 10 percent into a Roth, you're doing just fine. If that 5k is more than 10 percent, you'll do better than fine. (That's a rule of thumb, but it's based on a lot of things I've read where people have gamed out various scenarios, as well as my own, cruder calculations I've done in the past)\"" }, { "docid": "353369", "title": "", "text": "Determine how much you are going to save first. Then determine where you can spend your money. If you're living with your parents, try to build an emergency fund of six months income. The simplest way is to put half of your income in the emergency fund for a year. Try to save at least 10% of your income for retirement. The earlier you start this, the longer you'll have to let the magic of compounding work on it. If your employer offers a 401k with a match, do that first. If not, consider an IRA. You probably want to do a Roth now (because you probably pay little in taxes so the deduction from a standard IRA won't help you). After the year, you'll have an emergency fund. Work out how much money you'll need for rent, utilities, and groceries when you're on your own. Invest that in some way. Pay off student loans if you have any. Buy a car that you can keep a long time if you need one. Go to night school. Put any excess money in a savings account or mutual fund. This is money for doing things related to housing. Perhaps you'll need to buy a washer/dryer. Or pay a down payment on a mortgage eventually. Saving this money now does two things: first, it gives you savings for when you need it; second, it keeps you from getting used to spending your entire paycheck. If you are used to only having $200 of spending cash out of each check, you will fit your spending into that. If you are used to spending $800 every two weeks, it will be hard to cut your spending to make room for rent, etc." }, { "docid": "448260", "title": "", "text": "A 401K (pre-tax or Roth) account or an IRA (Deductible or Roth) account is a retirement account. Which means you delay paying taxes now on your deposits, or you avoid paying taxes on your earnings later. But a retirement account doesn't perform any different than any other account year-to-year. Being a retirement account doesn't dictate a type of investment. You can invest in a certificate of deposit that is guaranteed to make x% this year; or you can invest in stocks, bonds, mutual funds that infest in stocks or bonds. Those stocks and bonds can be growth focused, or income focused; they can be from large companies or small companies; US companies or international companies. Or whatever mix you want. The graph in your question shows that if you invest early in your adulthood, and keep investing, and you make the average return you should make more money than starting later. But a couple of notes: So to your exact questions: An S&P 500 investment should perform exactly the same this year if it is in a 401K, IRA, or taxable account With a few exceptions: Yes any investment can lose money. The last 6 months have been volatile and the last month and a half especially so. A retirement account isn't any different. An investment in mutual fund X in a retirement account is just as depressed a one in the same fund but from a taxable account." }, { "docid": "114054", "title": "", "text": "\"I'm not following what's the meaning of \"\"open a mutual fund\"\". You don't open a mutual fund, you invest in it. There's a minimum required investment ($2000? Could be, some funds have lower limits, you don't have to go with the Fidelity one necessarily), but in general it has nothing to do with your Roth IRA account. You can invest in mutual funds with any trading account, not just Roth IRA (or any other specific kind). If you invest in ETF's - you can invest in funds just as well (subject to the minimums set). As to the plan itself - buying and selling ETF's will cost you commission, ~2-3% of your investment. Over several months, you may get positive returns, and may get negative returns, but keep in mind that you start with the 2-3% loss on day 1. Within a short period of time, especially in the current economic climate (which is very unstable - just out of recession, election year, etc etc), I would think that keeping the cash in a savings account would be a better choice. While with ETF you don't have any guarantees other than -3%, then with savings accounts you can at least have a guaranteed return of ~1% APY (i.e.: won't earn much over the course of your internship, but you'll keep your money safe for your long term investment). For the long term - the fluctuations of month to month don't matter much, so investing now for the next 50 years - you shouldn't care about the stock market going 10% in April. So, keep your 1000 in savings account, and if you want to invest 5000 in your Roth IRA - invest it then. Assuming of course that you're completely positive about not needing this money in the next several decades.\"" }, { "docid": "448358", "title": "", "text": "Your 401k IRA will now have three different sub-accounts, the one holding your Traditional (pre-tax) 401k contributions, the one holding your Roth 401k contributions, and the one holding the employer match contributions (which, as has been pointed out to you, cannot be considered to be Roth 401k contributions). That is, it is not true that So my next month's check shows $500+$500 going to the regular 401k, and $82+$82 going to the Roth 401k. Your next month's paystub will show $500 going into the regular 401k, $100 going into the Roth 401k, and if employer matching contributions are listed on the paystub, it will still show $600 going into the employer match. If you have chosen to invest your 401k in mutual funds (or stocks), shares are purchased when the 401k administrator receives the money and are also segregated in the three subaccounts. If you are paid monthly, then you will know on a month-by-month basis how many shares you hold in the three separate subaccounts, and there is no end-of-year modification of how many shares were purchased with Roth 401k contributions versus how many were purchased with pretax contributions or with employer matching funds as you seem to think." }, { "docid": "241433", "title": "", "text": "Most important: Any gains you make from risking this sum of money over the next few years will not be life changing, but if you can't afford to lose it, then losses can be. Rhetorical question: How can you trust what I say you should do with your money? Answer: You can't. I'm happy to hear you're reading about the stock market, so please allow me to encourage you to keep learning. And broaden your target to investing, or even further, to financial planning. You may decide to pay down debt first. You may decide to hold cash since you need it within a couple years. Least important: I suggest a Roth IRA at any online discount brokerage whose fees to open an account plus 1 transaction fee are the lowest to get you into a broad-market index ETF or mutual fund." }, { "docid": "78249", "title": "", "text": "If you just want to save for retirement, start with a financial planning book, like this one: http://www.amazon.com/Smart-Simple-Financial-Strategies-People/dp/0743269942 and here's my editorial on the investing part: http://blog.ometer.com/2010/11/10/take-risks-in-life-for-savings-choose-a-balanced-fund/ If you're thinking of spending time stock-picking or trading for fun, then there are lots of options. Web site: Morningstar Premium (http://morningstar.com) has very good information. They analyze almost all large-cap stocks and some small caps too, plus mutual funds and ETFs, and have some good general information articles. It doesn't have the sales-pitch hot-blooded tone of most other sites. Morningstar analyzes companies from a value investing point of view which is probably what you want unless you're day trading. Also they analyze funds, which are probably the most practical investment. Books: If you want to be competent (in the sense that a professional investor trying to beat the market or control risk vs. the market would be) then I thought the CFA curriculum was pretty good: However, this will quickly teach you how much is involved in being competent. The level 1 curriculum when I did it was 6 or 7 thick textbooks, equivalent to probably a college semester courseload. I didn't do level 2 or 3. I don't think level 1 was enough to become competent, it's just enough to learn what you don't know. The actual CFA charter requires all three levels and years of work experience. If you more want to dabble, then Benjamin Graham's The Intelligent Investor certainly isn't a bad place to start, but you'd also want to read some efficient markets stuff (Random Walk Down Wall Street, or something by Bogle, or The Intelligent Asset Allocator http://www.amazon.com/Intelligent-Asset-Allocator-Portfolio-Maximize/dp/0071362363, are some options). It wouldn't be bad to just read a textbook like http://www.amazon.com/Investments-Irwin-Finance-Zvi-Bodie/dp/0256146381 which would be the much-abridged version of the CFA level 1 stuff. If you're into day trading / charting, then I don't know much about that at all, some of the other answers may have some ideas. I've never been able to find info on this that didn't seem like it had a sketchy sales pitch kind of vibe. Honestly in a world of high-frequency trading computers I'm skeptical this is something to get into. Unless you want to program HFT computers: http://howtohft.wordpress.com/" }, { "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": "151741", "title": "", "text": "\"Paying the mortgage down is no different than investing in a long term taxable fixed instrument. In this economy, 4.7% isn't bad, but longer term, the stock market should return higher. When you have the kid(s), is your wife planing to work? If not, I'd first suggest going pre-tax on the IRAs, and when she's not working, convert to Roth. I'd advise against starting the 529 accounts until your child(ren) is actually born. As far as managed funds are concerned, I hear \"\"expenses.\"\" Why not learn about lower cost funds, index mutual funds or ETFs? I'd not do too much different aside from this, until the kids are born.\"" }, { "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": "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": "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": "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": "429106", "title": "", "text": "Our company does a lot of research on the self-directed IRA industry. We also provide financial advice in this area. In short, we have seen a lot in this industry. You mentioned custodian fees. This can be a sore spot for many investors. However, not all custodians are expensive, you should do your research before choosing the best one. Here is a list of custodians to help with your research Here are some of the more common pros and cons that we see. Pros: 1) You can invest in virtually anything that is considered an investment. This is great if your expertise is in an area that cannot be easily invested in with traditional securities, such as horses, private company stock, tax liens and more. 2) Control- you have greater control over your investments. If you invest in GE, it is likely that you will not have much say in the running of their business. However, if you invest in a rental property, you will have a lot of control over how the investment should operate. 3) Invest in what you know. Peter lynch was fond of saying this phrase. Not everyone wants to invest in the stock market. Many people won't touch it because they are not familiar with it. Self-directed IRAs allow you to invest in assets like real estate that you know well. Cons: 1) many alternative investments are illiquid. This can present a problem if you need to access your capital for withdrawals. 2) Prohibited transactions- This is a new area for many investors who are unfamiliar with how self-directed IRAs work 3) Higher fees- in many cases, the fees associated with self-directed IRA custodians and administrators can be higher. 4) questionable investment sponsors tend to target self-directed IRA owners for fraudulent investments. The SEC put out a good PDF about the risks of fraud with self-directed IRAs. Self Directed IRAs are not the right solution for everyone, but they can help certain investors focus on the areas they know well." }, { "docid": "242124", "title": "", "text": "\"Unquestionably I think the priority should be funding retirement through ROTH/IRA/401K over HSA extra. Obviously you need to fund your HSA for reasonable and expected medical expenses. Also there is some floor to your more traditional retirement funding. Beyond that what does one do with excess dollars? Given the lack of flexibility and fees, it seems clear to do ROTH IRA and 401K. Beyond that what then? You may want to decide to \"\"take some money home\"\" and pay taxes on it. Do you have a desire to own rental property or start/purchase a business? Upgrade your home? etc... If all those things are taken care of, only then would I put money into an HSA. YMMV but most people, maxing a ROTH IRA alone, will have plenty of money for retirement given a reasonable rate of return.\"" }, { "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": "134109", "title": "", "text": "\"401(k) doesn't have a \"\"return rate\"\", because 401(k) is not a type of investment -- it is a vehicle for investment, with certain tax treatments. Just like your money that's not in a 401(k), you can invest it in either the bank, a CD, stocks, mutual funds, bonds, etc., you can similarly (depending on the options given to you by your 401(k) plan) invest the money in the 401(k) in a cash account, buy stocks, mutual funds, etc. Your return is dependent on how you invest your money, not whether it's in a 401(k) or not. Whether it's in a (Roth or Traditional) 401(k) simply affects when and how it gets taxed. (It is true that most 401(k) plans offer little variety in types of investments you can choose; however, this is not a big deal, as chances are that in a few years, you will leave your company, at which point you are able to rollover the 401(k) into an IRA, at which point you will have many, many options for how to invest it.) To make a valid comparison, you should be comparing the same type of investment in both cases. That means, you should assume the same return for both the money outside the 401(k), and the money inside the 401(k), and only consider the taxes and penalties (if you plan to withdraw early).\"" }, { "docid": "385600", "title": "", "text": "For some ideas on investing priority guidelines, see Oversimplify it for me: the correct order of investing. Congratulations on being debt free! My advice to you is to do what you can to remain debt free. You could certainly invest the money; it will earn much more over the long-term in a stock mutual fund than it would left in a savings account. However, if you need any of this money in the next few years, it would be a shame if it lost money in the short-term. How much do you need to finish grad school? Don't invest that money in the stock market, because you will need it over the next few years. Likewise, think about other expenses that are coming up. Will your car need to be replaced in the next couple of years? Will you have enough income to meet your living expenses while you are in grad school, or will you need some of this to money to help with that? Finally, it would be good to keep some extra as an emergency fund, so you can easily pay for any unexpected expenses that come up. If you can make it through grad school debt free, you will be much better off than if you invest all the money but take out student loans in the process. After you've accounted for all of that, whatever is left of the money could definitely be invested. If your goal is to start a retirement fund, an index mutual fund invested inside a Roth IRA is a great place to start." } ]

[ { "docid": "37040", "title": "", "text": "\"First of all, not all brokers allow trading during pre-market and post-market. Some brokers only allow trading during the regular hours (9:30am - 4pm ET). Second of all, while you can place orders using limit orders and market orders during regular trading hours, you can only use limit orders during pre-market and post-market. This is because the liquidity is much lower during pre-market and post-market, and using market orders could result in some trades filling at horrible prices. So brokers don't allow using market orders outside of regular trading hours. Third, some brokers require you to specify that you want your order to be executed during pre-market or post-market. For example, my broker allows me to specify either \"\"Day\"\" or \"\"Ext\"\" for my orders. \"\"Day\"\" means I want my order to execute only during regular trading hours, and \"\"Ext\"\" means I want my order to execute at any time - pre-market, regular trading hours, or post-market. Finally, if your broker allows pre/post market trading, and you place a limit order while specifying \"\"Ext\"\", then your trade can happen in real-time during pre-market or post-market. Per your example, if a stock is trading at $5 at 8am, and you put in a limit order (while specifying \"\"Ext\"\") to buy it at $5 at 8am, then your order will execute at that time and you will buy that stock at 8am.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "140193", "title": "", "text": "\"&gt; How does Equifax lose sales after a breech? Unless their data has been corrupted or falsified, it's still good to sell or charge for each credit pull. That might be true (it might not be - I don't know how flexible demand is between the 3 bureau's). But it isn't true for most breaches. &gt;all three are above their pre-hack prices. Sure. But they lost a lot of money after the breaches &gt;I don't think the penalty should be \"\"death\"\" but considering their total assets is $10B, I don't think any fair penalty would allow the organization to survive. If they were Apple with $820B market cap, then yeah, the $70B would be a harsh and fair, but survivable penalty. To make it \"\"fair\"\" (if there is such a thing) you'd want it to be proportional. So if it'd be 70B for Apple, it'd be about $850MM for Equifax. That's how you'd want it done if you want it done by operation of law (as opposed to markets and courts).\"" }, { "docid": "44152", "title": "", "text": "Couple of points about being a consultant in the US: It sounds like the rules for what you can deduct may be more lax in Italy. For example, you can deduct a certain percentage of your home for work but the rules are relatively strict on your use of that space and how much is deductible. Also things like clothes, restaurants, phones, car use, etc must follow IRS guidelines to be deductible. This often means they are used exclusively for work and are required for work. A meal you eat by yourself is not generally deductible, for example. Any expense you would have had anyway if you were not working is generally not deductible. A contractor in the US can organize in various ways, including sole proprietorship, an S-corp, and a C-corp. Each has different tax and regulatory implications. In the simple case of a sole proprietorship, one must pay not only regular income tax but also self-employment tax, which is the part of social security and medicare tax normally paid for by one's employer. Estimated taxes must be paid to the government quarterly and then the actual amount due synced up at the end of the year (with the government sending you the difference or vice versa). Generally speaking contractors may set aside more money pre-tax for retirement and have better investment options. This is because solo 401(k) retirement accounts are cost-effective and flexible and the contractor can set aside the full $18K pre-tax as well as having the company contribute generously (pre-tax) to the retirement account. Contractors can also easily employ spouses and set aside even more. The details of how frequently you are paid as a contractor and how much notice (if any) the company must give you before terminating your relationship are negotiated between you and the company and are generally pretty flexible. You could get paid your whole year salary in a lump sum if you wanted. The company that is paying you will not normally give you any benefits whatsoever...in this way it is the same situation as it is in Italy. By the way the three points you mention in your edit are definitely not true in the US." }, { "docid": "21313", "title": "", "text": "An oxymoron is something that contradicts itself. Inside trading is sharing information that isn't public. How the fuck do you think these hedge funds and investment banks can offer almost 50% returns during these times in our economy??? Oh yea it's called inside trading. Reason why it's an oxymoron is because trading information is considered ilegal yet that what everyone does on the market, rules are made to give off fear but past that it's all open roads and deep pockets. And if you really don't believe that stock market isn't rigged then there is no reason for me to explain myself on that because it would be like taking to a wall. And I thank you for being one of those people that thinks it's not rigged because you help my portfolio look good from your dumb investments." }, { "docid": "285126", "title": "", "text": "\"I may be underestimating your knowledge of how exchanges work; if so, I apologize. If not, then I believe the answer is relatively straightforward. Lets say price of a stock at time t1 is 15$ . There are many types of price that an exchange reports to the public (as discussed below); let's say that you're referring to the most recent trade price. That is, the last time a trade executed between a willing buyer and a willing seller was at $15.00. Lets say a significant buy order of 1M shares came in to the market. Here I believe might be a misunderstanding on your part. I think you're assuming that the buy order must necessarily be requesting a price of $15.00 because that was the last published price at time t1. In fact, orders can request any price they want. It's totally okay for someone to request to buy at $10.00. Presumably nobody will want to sell to him, but it's still a perfectly valid buy order. But let's continue under the assumptions that at t1: This makes the bid $14.99 and the ask $15.00. (NYSE also publishes these prices.) There aren't enough people selling that stock. It's quite rare (in major US equities) for anyone to place a buy order that exceeds the total available shares listed for sale at all prices. What I think you mean is that 1M is larger than the amount of currently-listed sell requests at the ask of $15.00. So say of the 1M only 100,000 had a matching sell order and others are waiting. So this means that there were exactly 100,000 shares waiting to be sold at the ask of $15.00, and that all other sellers currently in the market told NYSE they were only willing to sell for a price of $15.01 or higher. If there had been more shares available at $15.00, then NYSE would have matched them. This would be a trigger to the automated system to start increasing the price. Here is another point of misunderstanding, I think. NYSE's automated system does not invent a new, higher price to publish at this point. Instead it simply reports the last trade price (still $15.00), and now that all of the willing sellers at $15.00 have been matched, NYSE also publishes the new ask price of $15.01. It's not that NYSE has decided $15.01 is the new price for the stock; it's that $15.01 is now the lowest price at which anyone (known to NYSE) is willing to sell. If nobody happened to be interested in selling at $15.01 at t1, but there were people interested in selling at $15.02, then the new published ask would be $15.02 instead of $15.01 -- not because NYSE decided it, but just because those happened to be the facts at the time. Similarly, the new bid is most likely now $15.00, assuming the person who placed the order for 1M shares did not cancel the remaining unmatched 900,000 shares of his/her order. That is, $15.00 is now the highest price at which anyone (known to NYSE) is willing to buy. How much time does the automated system wait to increment the price, the frequency of the price change and by what percentage to increment etc. So I think the answer to all these questions is that the automated system does none of these things. It merely publishes information about (a) the last trade price, (b) the price that is currently the lowest price at which anyone has expressed a willingness to sell, and (c) the price that is currently the highest price at which anyone has expressed a willingness to buy. ::edit:: Oh, I forgot to answer your primary question. Can we estimate the impact of a large buy order on the share price? Not only can we estimate the impact, but we can know it explicitly. Because the exchange publishes information on all the orders it knows about, anyone tracking that information can deduce that (in this example) there were exactly 100,000 shares waiting to be purchased at $15.00. So if a \"\"large buy order\"\" of 1M shares comes in at $15.00, then we know that all of the people waiting to sell at $15.00 will be matched, and the new lowest ask price will be $15.01 (or whatever was the next lowest sell price that the exchange had previously published).\"" }, { "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": "177424", "title": "", "text": "\"No, a jump in market capitalization does not equal the amount that has been invested. Market cap is simply the stock price times the total number of shares. This represents a theoretical value of the company. I say \"\"theoretical\"\" because the company might not be able to be sold for that at all. The quoted stock price is simply what the last buyer and seller of stock agreed upon for the price of their trade. They really only represent themselves; other investors may decide that the stock is worth more or less than that. The stock price can move on very little volume. In this case, Amazon had released a very good earnings report after the bell yesterday, and the price jumped in after hours trading. The stock price is up, but that simply means that the few shares traded overnight sold for much higher than the closing price yesterday. After the market opens today and many more shares are traded, we'll get a better idea what large numbers of investors feel about the price. But no matter what the price does, the change in market cap does not equal the amount of new money being invested in the company. Market cap is the price of the most recent trades extrapolated out across all the shares.\"" }, { "docid": "474924", "title": "", "text": "\"1. As I said, the above is not actually anything like a genuine history of how money emerged, it's an explain-it-to-a-five-year-old parable to answer \"\"where does the money go in an economic contraction?\"\" 2. It's also not defense/endorsement/apology for any particular set of policies or historical theory of money. It's a picture-book describing the workings of an internal combustion engine using cartoon characters, not a treatise on the social and environmental implications of American car-culture. That said, in the parable, the reasons why the simplified caricatures in the town chose to accept the fiat currency are pretty straightforward, and are actually explained: - They were previously using a system of a whole bunch of separate, privately-issued currencies, each with complex and hard-to-evaluate credit risks (Bob's potato certificate versus Jane's Potato certificate versus your apple-certificate versus my deer certificate). This was causing problems and confusion about how much any given certificate was actually worth. - The system proposed was proposed in a way that was *at least* as credible as the best existing system. - Last but not least, they accepted the new currency for *exactly the same reason* that you accept dollar, euros, or whatever: because everyone else does. There was no law preventing any of them from still trading apple IOUs (in fact, we still traded them, later in the example, except denominated in loddars). I could have asked you for the last note to denominated in apples, but that would probably have been harder to trade than the currency that everyone else is using. I said I wouldn't get into the gold-standard debate, and I won't, and here's why: the debate hinges entirely and solely on whether you believe that a \"\"good\"\" fiat currency is possible and realistically sustainable. If you do, then fiat currency makes a lot more sense in every respect. If you don't, then fiat currency is always just a catastrophe waiting to happen. My parable shows the mechanics of how money works. It doesn't say whether the system is good or bad, or whether they should have accepted the fiat system proposed, or held out for a better one, or rejected it altogether. You can argue that internal combustion engines are bad, or that much better alternatives are available, or that nobody should use them, but that doesn't make a description of they work incorrect.\"" }, { "docid": "539836", "title": "", "text": "Single payer health care, aka socialized, has been shown to be superior. If you haven't noticed we already do the free market thing. That is why insurers have been booting people with pre existing conditions and hospitals and pharma companies hugely jacking up the rates. Epi pens are up over 700% from a few years ago. Martin Shrekli bought rights to a life saving drug and jacked the prices astronomically. The free market works great for consumer products and services, but when it comes to services that are meant to benefit society, the free market does a horrendous job. Health care in other counties' goal is to provide adequate health care for the lowest cost. Here it is trying to charge people as much as they can get away with and marginalizing those that can't afford. And funny enough you are paying more for health care in your taxes than in any other country in ADDITION to your private insurance for lower quality care so the pharma execs can increase their share prices." }, { "docid": "401960", "title": "", "text": "The only real competition I see in the US market is in the pre-paid service providers. But they are just piggybacking off the networks of the larger carriers. To have an actual functioning market they would have to be some legal framework that requires all carriers to share their networks at some reasonable fee rate and then put value added on top of that. That is pretty much how the POTS worked. We recognized that as a nation it is plainly ridiculous to compete on who can hang the most wires. We lost that lesson and now we're letting carriers compete almost purely on who can erect the most towers. AT&amp;T and Verizon are essentially the same company offering the same service. The entire basis of their competition is who can get the most right of way access to install the most towers. it's crazy." }, { "docid": "510935", "title": "", "text": "Trade credit is fine and works without a central bank. All it needs is contract law. The perversion of that is using trade credit collected from somebody else to pay for goods and services mandated by the government as legal tender. That creates false savings that expand exponentially. It probably wouldn't happen much in a free market unless bought at a steep discount by the person receiving it. This is how collection companies work, they buy receivables from telephone companies or other businesses at a steep discount and try to collect on them. In a non-fiat system there would be plenty of trade credit, because how else are you going to drum up business? Personal relationships would ensure that debts were made good, everyone in the economy would be a banker with their own money or goods. I'm not saying we need libertarian minarchist government here for any of this to work. The government could intervene from time to time and tax to build infrastructure or raise a military for defence or whatever they really wanted but at least they wouldn't be creating booms and busts with their borrowing activity." }, { "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": "89205", "title": "", "text": "The market doesn't really need to adjust for fees on ETF funds that are often less than 1/10th of a percent. The loss of the return is more than made up for by the diversification. How does the market adjust for trading fees? It doesn't have to, it's just a cost of doing business. If one broker or platform offers better fee structures, people will naturally migrate toward the lower fees." }, { "docid": "180644", "title": "", "text": "Your question is a bit odd in that you are mixing long-term fundamental analysis signals which are generally meant to work on longer time frames with medium term trading where these fundamental signals are mostly irrelevant. Generally you would buy-and-hold on a fundamental signal and ride the short-term fluctuations if you believe you have done good analysis. If you would like to trade on the 2-6 month time scale you would need a signal that works on that sort of time scale. Some people believe that technical analysis can give you those kind of signals, but there are many, many, many different technical signals and how you would trade using them is highly dependent on which one you believe works. Some people do mix fundamental and technical signals, but that can be very complicated. Learning a good amount about technical analysis could get you started. I will note, though, that studies of non-professionals continuously show that the more frequently people trade the more on they underperform on average in the long term when compared with people that buy-and-hold. An aside on technical analysis: michael's comment is generally correct though not well explained. Say Bob found a technical signal that works and he believes that a stock that costs $10 dollars should be $11. He buys it and makes money two months later when the rest of the market figures out the right price is $11 and he sells at that price. This works a bunch of times and he now publishes how the signal works on Stack Exchange to show everyone how awesome he is. Next time, Bob's signal finds a different stock at $10 that should be $11, but Anna just wrote a computer program that checks that signal Bob published faster than he ever could. The computer program buys as much as it can in milliseconds until the price is $11. Bob goes to buy, but now it is too late the price is already $11 and he can't make any money. Eventually, people learn to anticipate/adjust for this signal and even Anna's algorithms don't even work anymore and the hunt for new signals starts again." }, { "docid": "161254", "title": "", "text": "Day trading is probably the most often tried and failed activity in the financial world. People think they can parlay $1,000 investment into $1,000,000 in a week with little or no knowledge on how to evaluate stocks and or companies. They think they can just look at where the line graphs' been and forecast where it's going to be next week. Unfortunately if it were that simple everyone would be making money hand over fist in the market. So in short, the reason day trading is considered a risky venture is because most of the people that attempt to do it are willfully ignorant. They intentionally choose not to read about day trading. They intentionally choose not to learn about how to read a company's financial report and they intentionally choose not to learn how to compare one stock to another. They also don't consider the fact that most of their data is 15 or more min old because of the shady rules brokers have worked into the system. Real everyday investors that make money in the market do it by careful evaluation of the purchase they are about to make. Guess what, even they lose time to time. That's the game!" }, { "docid": "164008", "title": "", "text": "The everyday investor buys at the ask and sells at the bid but the market maker does the opposite This is misleading; it has nothing to do with being either an investor or a market maker. It is dependent on the type of order that is submitted. When a market trades at the ask, this means that a buy market order has interacted with a sell limit order at the limit price. When a market trades at the bid, this means that a sell market order has interacted with a buy limit order at the limit price. An ordinary investor can do exactly the same as a market maker and submit limit orders. Furthermore, they can sit on both sides of the bid and ask exactly as a market maker does. In the days before high frequency trading this was quite common (an example being Daytek, whose traders were notorious for stepping in front of the designated market maker's bid/ask on the Island ECN). An order executes ONLY when both bid and ask meet. (bid = ask) This is completely incorrect. A transaction occurs when an active (marketable) order is matched with a passive (limit book) order. If the passive order is a sell limit then the trade has occurred at the ask, and if it is a buy limit the trade has occurred at the bid. The active orders are not bids and asks. The only exception to this would be if the bid and ask have become crossed. When a seller steps in, he does so with an ask that's lower than the stock's current ask Almost correct; he does so with an order that's lower than the stock's current ask. If it's a marketable order it will fill the front queued best bid, and if it's a limit order his becomes the new ask price. A trade does not need to occur at this price for it to become the ask. This is wrong, market makers are the opposite party to you so the prices are the other way around for them. This is wrong. There is no distinction between the market maker and yourself or any other member of the public (beside the fact that designated market makers on some exchanges are obliged to post both a bid and ask at all times). You can open an account with any broker and do exactly the same as a market maker does (although with nothing like the speed that a high frequency market-making firm can, hence likely making you uncompetitive in this arena). The prices a market maker sees and the types of orders that they are able to use to realize them are exactly the same as for any other trader." }, { "docid": "260023", "title": "", "text": "Every company has Stocks. For the stocks to be traded via some stock exchange, the companies must follow the eligibility criteria and guidelines. Once done, these are then listed on the stock exchange and can be traded. The advantage [amongst others] of listing is liquidity and stocks can easily be bought and sold. Some small companies or closely held companies may not want to list on stock exchange and hence are not traded. This does not mean they can't be bought and sold, they can be outside of the market, however the deals are complex and every deal has to be worked out. During the course of time a stock that is traded on a stock exchange, would either fail to meet the criteria or voluntarily choose not to be traded and follow the delisting process [either by stock exchange or by company]. After this the stocks are no longer traded on the exchange." }, { "docid": "173084", "title": "", "text": "\"There seems to be a common sentiment that no investor can consistently beat the market on returns. What evidence exists for or against this? First off, even if the markets were entirely random there would be individual investors that would consistently beat the market throughout their lifetime entirely by luck. There are just so many people this is a statistical certainty. So let's talk about evidence of beating the market due to persistent skill. I should hedge by saying there isn't a lot of good data here as most understandably most individual investors don't give out their investment information but there are some ok datasets. There is weak evidence, for instance, that the best individual investors keep outperforming and interestingly that the trading of individual investors can predict future market movements. Though the evidence is more clear that individual investors make a lot of mistakes and that these winning portfolios are not from commonly available strategies and involve portfolios that are much riskier than most would recommend. Is there really no investment strategy that would make it likely for this investor to consistently outperform her benchmark? There are so, many, papers (many reasonable even) out there about how to outperform benchmarks (especially risk-adjusted basis). Not too mention some advisers with great track records and a sea of questionable websites. You can even copy most of what Buffet does if you want. Remember though that the average investor by definition makes the average \"\"market\"\" return and then pays fees on top of that. If there is a strategy out there that is obviously better than the market and a bunch of people start doing it, it quickly becomes expensive to do and becomes part the market. If there was a proven, easy to implement way to beat the market everyone would do it and it would be the market. So why is it that on this site or elsewhere, whenever an active trading strategy is discussed that potentially beats the market, there is always a claim that it probably won't work? To start with there are a large number of clearly bad ideas posed here and elsewhere. Sometimes though the ideas might be good and may even have a good chance to beat the market. Like so many of the portfolios that beat the market though and they add a lot of uncertainty and in particular, for this personal finance site, risk that the person will not be able to live comfortably in retirement. There is so much uncertainty in the market and that is why there will always be people that consistently outperform the market but at the same time why there will be few, if any, strategies that will outperform consistently with any certainty.\"" }, { "docid": "434596", "title": "", "text": "In general stock markets are very similar to that, however, you can also put in limit orders to say that you will only buy or sell at a given price. These sit in the market for a specified length of time and will be executed when an order arrives that matches the price (or better). Traders who set limit orders are called liquidity (or price) makers as they provide liquidity (i.e. volume to be traded) to be filled later. If there is no counterparty (i.e. buyer to your seller) in the market, a market maker; a large bank or brokerage who is licensed and regulated to do so, will fill your order at some price. That price is based on how much volume (i.e. trading) there is in that stock on average. This is called average daily volume (ADV) and is calculated over varying periods of time; we use ADV30 which is the 30 day average. You can always sell stocks for whatever price you like privately but a market order does not allow you to set your price (you are a price taker) therefore that kind of order will always fill at a market price. As mentioned above limit orders will not fill until the price is hit but will stay on book as long as they aren't filled, expired or cancelled." }, { "docid": "495007", "title": "", "text": "I suspect that the times you are referring to are those times when there is relatively low volumes of foreign exchange trading. Lower volumes of trading make it possible for large orders to have a disproportionate effect on the market price. This implies that the times to avoid will be the times with the lowest relative volumes. This will occur on the cusp between the New York market winding down and the Asia/Tokyo market revving up. This will be in the hours preceding Tokyo's opening at 06:00 Tokyo time, so the time to avoid is about 04:00-06:00 Tokyo time, or about 20:00-22:00 GMT (if I've worked out the time difference correctly). Foreign exchange is a 24 hour, global market. Although each of the three main trading centres - London, New York, Asia - will operate 24 hours a day, they will maintain only a skeleton staff outside of normal working hours. The time difference between London and New York is only 5 hours, so there is no period of time when both centres are operating with a skeleton staff. The time difference between London and Tokyo is 8 hours, so again there is no period of time when both centres are operating with a skeleton staff. The time difference between New York and Tokyo is 13 hours. This does include a period where both centres are operating with a skeleton staff, as well as London operating on a skeleton staff. Thus, in the couple of hours immediately preceding Tokyo's opening for the regular trading day there is minimal coverage in each of the three main trading centres. As mentioned above, this is the time when large orders can have a disproportionate effect on fx rates and so this is the time to avoid." } ]

[ { "docid": "292559", "title": "", "text": "The benefit is not in taxes. When you sell a portion of your stock, you no longer have a portion of your stock. When you get a dividend, you still have a portion of your stock. Dividends are distributed from the net profits of a company and as such usually don't affect its growth/earning potential much (although there may be cases when they do). So while the price takes a temporary dip due to the distribution, you're likely to get the same dividends again next year, if the company continues being similarly profitable. If you sell a portion of your stock, at some point you'll end up with no more stocks to sell." } ]

[ { "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": "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": "263751", "title": "", "text": "I guess the answer lies in your tax jurisdiction (different countries tax capital gains and income differently) and your particular tax situation. If the price of the stock goes up or down between when you buy and sell then this counts for tax purposes as a capital gain or loss. If you receive a dividend then this counts as income. So, for instance, if you pay tax on income but not on capital gains (or perhaps at a lower rate on capital gains) then it would pay you to sell immediately before the stock goes ex-dividend and buy back immediately after thereby making a capital gain instead of receiving income." }, { "docid": "337941", "title": "", "text": "\"Some people have this notion that withdrawing dividends from savings is somehow okay but withdrawing principal is not. Note, this notion. Would someone please explain the \"\"mistake\"\" on P214 and why it's a mistake? Because there may be times where withdrawing principal may be a good idea as one could sell off something that has gained enough that in re-balancing the portfolio there are capital gains that could be used for withdrawing in retirement. How and why does the sale of financial instrument equate to the receipt of dividends? In either case, one has cash equivalents that could be withdrawn. If you take the dividends in cash or sell a security to raise cash, you have cash. Thus, it doesn't matter what origin it has. If I sell a financial instrument that later appreciates in value, then this profit opportunity is lost. In the case of a dividend, I'd still possess the financial security and benefit from the stock's appreciation? One could argue that the in the case of a dividend, by not buying more of the instrument you are missing out on a profit opportunity as well. Thus, are you out to make the maximum profit overall or do you have reason for taking the cash instead of increasing your holding?\"" }, { "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": "199544", "title": "", "text": "Is that basically it? Trading off between withdrawing-anytime vs paying-capital-gain-tax? No. Another significant factor is dividends. In an IRA they incur no immediate tax and can be reinvested. This causes the account value to compound over the years. Historically, this compounding of dividends provides about half of the total return on investments. In a non-IRA account you have to pay taxes each year on all dividends received, whether you reinvest them or not. So outside of an IRA you have a tax drag on both capital gains and dividends." }, { "docid": "437907", "title": "", "text": "The dividend tax credit is not applicable to foreign dividend income, so you would be taxed fully on every dollar of that income. When you sell a stock, there will be a capital gain or capital loss depending on if it gained or lost value, after accounting for the Adjusted Cost Base. You only pay income tax on half of the amount earned through capital gains, and if you have losses, you can use them to offset other investments that had capital gains (or carry forward to offset gains in the future). The dividends from US stocks are subject to a 15% withholding tax that gets paid to the IRS automatically when the dividends are issued. If the stocks are held in an RRSP, they are exempt from the withholding tax. If held in a non-registered account, you can be reimbursed for the tax by claiming the foreign tax credit that you linked to. If held in a TFSA or RESP, the withholding tax cannot be recovered. Also, if you are not directly holding the stocks, and instead buy a mutual fund or ETF that directly holds the stocks, then the RRSP exemption no longer applies, but the foreign tax credit is still claimable for a non-registered account. If the mutual fund or ETF does not directly hold stocks, and instead holds one or more ETFs, there is no way to recover the withholding tax in any type of account." }, { "docid": "60929", "title": "", "text": "\"In a Traditional IRA contributions are often tax-deductible. For instance, if a taxpayer contributes $4,000 to a traditional IRA and is in the twenty-five percent marginal tax bracket, then a $1,000 benefit ($1,000 reduced tax liability) will be realized for the year. So that's why they tax you as income, because they didn't tax that income before. If a taxpayer expects to be in a lower tax bracket in retirement than during the working years, then this is one advantage for using a Traditional IRA vs a Roth. Distributions are taxed as ordinary income. So it depends on your tax bracket UPDATE FOR COMMENT: Currently you may have heard on the news about \"\"the fiscal cliff\"\" - CNBC at the end of the year. This is due to the fact that the Bush tax-cuts are set to expire and if they expire. Many tax rates will change. But here is the info as of right now: Dividends: From 2003 to 2007, qualified dividends were taxed at 15% or 5% depending on the individual's ordinary income tax bracket, and from 2008 to 2012, the tax rate on qualified dividends was reduced to 0% for taxpayers in the 10% and 15% ordinary income tax brackets. After 2012, dividends will be taxed at the taxpayer's ordinary income tax rate, regardless of his or her tax bracket. - If the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire. - Reference - Wikipedia Capital Gains tax rates can be seen here - the Capital Gains tax rate is relative to your Ordinary Income tax rate For Example: this year long term gains will be 0% if you fall in the 15% ordinary tax bracket. NOTE: These rates can change every year so any future rates might be different from the current year.\"" }, { "docid": "559884", "title": "", "text": "The dividend quoted on a site like the one you linked to on Yahoo shows what 1 investor owning 1 share received from the company. It is not adjusted at all for taxes. (Actually some dividend quotes are adjusted but not for taxes... see below.) It is not adjusted because most dividends are taxed as ordinary income. This means different rates for different people, and so for simplicity's sake the quotes just show what an investor would be paid. You're responsible for calculating and paying your own taxes. From the IRS website: Ordinary Dividends Ordinary (taxable) dividends are the most common type of distribution from a corporation or a mutual fund. They are paid out of earnings and profits and are ordinary income to you. This means they are not capital gains. You can assume that any dividend you receive on common or preferred stock is an ordinary dividend unless the paying corporation or mutual fund tells you otherwise. Ordinary dividends will be shown in box 1a of the Form 1099-DIV you receive. Now my disclaimer... what you see on a normal stock quote for dividend in Yahoo or Google Finance is adjusted. (Like here for GE.) Many corporations actually pay out quarterly dividends. So the number shown for a dividend will be the most recent quarterly dividend [times] 4 quarters. To find out what you would receive as an actual payment, you would need to divide GE's current $0.76 dividend by 4 quarters... $0.19. So you would receive that amount for each share of stock you owned in GE." }, { "docid": "45190", "title": "", "text": "\"A mutual fund could make two different kinds of distributions to you: Capital gains: When the fund liquidates positions that it holds, it may realize a gain if it sells the assets for a greater price than the fund purchased them for. As an example, for an index fund, assets may get liquidated if the underlying index changes in composition, thus requiring the manager to sell some stocks and purchase others. Mutual funds are required to distribute most of their income that they generate in this way back to its shareholders; many often do this near the end of the calendar year. When you receive the distribution, the gains will be categorized as either short-term (the asset was held for less than one year) or long-term (vice versa). Based upon the holding period, the gain is taxed differently. Currently in the United States, long-term capital gains are only taxed at 15%, regardless of your income tax bracket (you only pay the capital gains tax, not the income tax). Short-term capital gains are treated as ordinary income, so you will pay your (probably higher) tax rate on any cash that you are given by your mutual fund. You may also be subject to capital gains taxes when you decide to sell your holdings in the fund. Any profit that you made based on the difference between your purchase and sale price is treated as a capital gain. Based upon the period of time that you held the mutual fund shares, it is categorized as a short- or long-term gain and is taxed accordingly in the tax year that you sell the shares. Dividends: Many companies pay dividends to their stockholders as a way of returning a portion of their profits to their collective owners. When you invest in a mutual fund that owns dividend-paying stocks, the fund is the \"\"owner\"\" that receives the dividend payments. As with capital gains, mutual funds will redistribute these dividends to you periodically, often quarterly or annually. The main difference with dividends is that they are always taxed as ordinary income, no matter how long you (or the fund) have held the asset. I'm not aware of Texas state tax laws, so I can't comment on your other question.\"" }, { "docid": "473658", "title": "", "text": "ETFs offer the flexibility of stocks while retaining many of the benefits of mutual funds. Since an ETF is an actual fund, it has the diversification of its potentially many underlying securities. You can find ETFs with stocks at various market caps and style categories. You can have bond or mixed ETFs. You can even get ETFs with equal or fundamental weighting. In short, all the variety benefits of mutual funds. ETFs are typically much less expensive than mutual funds both in terms of management fees (expense ratio) and taxable gains. Most of them are not actively managed; instead they follow an index and therefore have a low turnover. A mutual fund may actively trade and, if not balanced with a loss, will generate capital gains that you pay taxes on. An ETF will produce gains only when shifting to keep inline with the index or you yourself sell. As a reminder: while expense ratio always matters, capital gains and dividends don't matter if the ETF or mutual fund is in a tax-advantaged account. ETFs have no load fees. Instead, because you trade it like a stock, you will pay a commission. Commissions are straight, up-front and perfectly clear. Much easier to understand than the various ways funds might charge you. There are no account minimums to entry with ETFs, but you will need to buy complete shares. Only a few places allow partial shares. It is generally harder to dollar-cost average into an ETF with regular automated investments. Also, like trading stocks, you can do those fancy things like selling short, buying on margin, options, etc. And you can pay attention to the price fluctuations throughout the day if you really want to. Things to make you pause: if you buy (no-load) mutual funds through the parent company, you'll get them at no commission. Many brokerages have No Transaction Fee (NTF) agreements with companies so that you can buy many funds for free. Still look out for that expense ratio though (which is probably paying for that NTF advantage). As sort of a middle ground: index funds can have very low expense ratios, track the same index as an ETF, can be tax-efficient or tax-managed, free to purchase, easy to dollar-cost average and easier to automate/understand. Further reading:" }, { "docid": "308693", "title": "", "text": "1) What's the point of paying a dividend if the stock price automatically decreases? Don't the shareholders just break even? When the company earns cash beyond what is needed for expenses, the value of the firm increases. As a shareholder, you own a piece of that increased value as soon as the company earns it. When the dividend is paid, the value of the firm decreases, but you break even on the dividend transaction. The benefit to you in holding the company's shares is the continually increasing value, whether paid out to you, or retained. Be careful not to confuse the value of the firm with the stock price. The stock price is ever-changing, in the short-term driven mostly by investor emotion. Over the long term, by far the largest effect on stock price is earnings. Take an extreme, and simplistic example. The company never grows or shrinks, earnings are always the same, there is no inflation :) , and they pay everything out in dividends. By the reasoning above, the firm value never changes, so over the long-term the stock price will never change, but you still get your quarterly dividends." }, { "docid": "118786", "title": "", "text": "I wrote about this in another answer: You can sell the scrip dividend in the market; the capital gain from this sale may fall below the annual tax-free allowance for capital gains, in which case you don't pay any capital gains tax on that amount. For a cash dividend, however, there isn't a minimum taxable amount, so you would owe dividend tax on the entire dividend (and may therefore pay more taxes on a cash dividend). Since you haven't sold the shares in the market yet, you haven't earned any income on the shares. You don't owe taxes on the scrip until you sell the shares and earn capital gains on them. HMRC is very explicit about this, in CG33800: It is quite common for a company, particularly a quoted company, to offer its shareholders the option of receiving additional shares instead of a cash dividend. The expression `stock or scrip dividend' is used to describe shares issued in such circumstances. The basic position under tax law is that when a company makes a bonus issue of shares no distribution arises, and the bonus issue of shares is not income for tax purposes in the hands of the recipient. Obviously, if this is an issue for you, talk to a tax professional to make sure you get it right." }, { "docid": "291996", "title": "", "text": "\"Dividends are a way of distributing profits from operating a business to the business owners. Why would you call it \"\"wasting money\"\" is beyond me. Decisions about dividend distribution are made by the company based on its net revenue and the needs of future capital. In some jurisdictions (the US, for example), the tax policy discourages companies from accumulating too much earnings without distributing dividends, unless they have a compelling reason to do so. Stock price is determined by the market. The price of a stock is neither expensive nor cheap on its own, you need to look at the underlying company and the share of it that the stock represents. In case of Google, according to some analysts, the price is actually quite cheap. The analyst consensus puts the target price for the next 12 months at $921 (vs. current $701).\"" }, { "docid": "558635", "title": "", "text": "I don't think it makes sense to allow accounting numbers that you are not sure how to interpret as being a sell sign. If you know why the numbers are weird and you feel that the reason for it bodes ill about the future, and if you think there's a reason this has not been accounted for by the market, then you might think about selling. The stock's performance will depend on what happens in the future. Financials just document the past, and are subject to all kinds of lumpiness, seasonality, and manipulation. You might benefit from posting a link to where you got your financials. Whenever one computes something like a dividend payout ratio, one must select a time period over which to measure. If the company had a rough quarter in terms of earnings but chose not to reduce dividends because they don't expect the future to be rough, that would explain a crazy high dividend ratio. Or if they were changing their capital structure. Or one of many other potentially benign things. Accounting numbers summarize a ton of complex workings of the company and many ratios we look at could be defined in several different ways. I'm afraid that the answer to your question about how to interpret things is in the details, and we are not looking at the same details you are." }, { "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": "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": "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": "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": "478291", "title": "", "text": "\"In the US, dividends are presently taxed at the same rates as capital gains, however selling stock could lead to less tax owed for the same amount of cash raised, because you are getting a return of basis or can elect to engage in a \"\"loss harvesting\"\" strategy. So to reply to the title question specifically, there are more tax \"\"benefits\"\" to selling stock to raise income versus receiving dividends. You have precise control of the realization of gains. However, the reason dividends (or dividend funds) are used for retirement income is for matching cash flow to expenses and preventing a liquidity crunch. One feature of retirement is that you're not working to earn a salary, yet you still have daily living expenses. Dividends are stable and more predictable than capital gains, and generate cash generally quarterly. While companies can reduce or suspend their dividend, you can generally budget for your portfolio to put a reliable amount of cash in your pocket on schedule. If you rely on selling shares quarterly for retirement living expenses, what would you have done (or how much of the total position would you have needed to sell) in order to eat during a decline in the market such as in 2007-2008?\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "337941", "title": "", "text": "\"Some people have this notion that withdrawing dividends from savings is somehow okay but withdrawing principal is not. Note, this notion. Would someone please explain the \"\"mistake\"\" on P214 and why it's a mistake? Because there may be times where withdrawing principal may be a good idea as one could sell off something that has gained enough that in re-balancing the portfolio there are capital gains that could be used for withdrawing in retirement. How and why does the sale of financial instrument equate to the receipt of dividends? In either case, one has cash equivalents that could be withdrawn. If you take the dividends in cash or sell a security to raise cash, you have cash. Thus, it doesn't matter what origin it has. If I sell a financial instrument that later appreciates in value, then this profit opportunity is lost. In the case of a dividend, I'd still possess the financial security and benefit from the stock's appreciation? One could argue that the in the case of a dividend, by not buying more of the instrument you are missing out on a profit opportunity as well. Thus, are you out to make the maximum profit overall or do you have reason for taking the cash instead of increasing your holding?\"" }, { "docid": "89973", "title": "", "text": "\"I think Fidelity has a very nice introduction to Growth vs Value investing that may give you the background you need. People love to put stocks in categories however the distinction is more of a range and can change over time. JB King makes a good point that for most people the two stocks you mentioned would both be considered value right now as they are both stable companies with a significant dividend. You are correct though Pfizer might be considered \"\"more growth.\"\" A more drastic example would be the difference between Target and Amazon. Both are retail companies that sell a wide variety of products. Target is a value company: a established company with stable revenues that uses its income to give a fairly stable dividend. Amazon is a growth company: that is reinvesting its revenues back into the corporation to grow itself as fast as possible. The price of the Amazon stock reflects what people think will be future growth (future income) for the company. Whereas Target's price appears to be based on the idea that future income will be similar to current income. You can see why growth companies like Amazon might be more risky as that growth you paid a high price for may not be realized, but the payout may be much higher as well.\"" }, { "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": "541126", "title": "", "text": "&gt;**Firms responded to this act by significantly increasing repatriations from foreign affiliates.** This paper analyzes the impact of the tax holiday on firm behavior. It controls for endogeneity and omitted variable bias by using instruments that identify the firms likely to receive the largest tax benefits from the holiday. Repatriations did not lead to an increase in investment, employment or R&amp;D—even for the firms that lobbied for the tax holiday stating these intentions. Instead, a $1 increase in repatriations was associated with an increase of approximately $1 in payouts to shareholders. Offhand, that's all I would think that they were going to do. If you remove a tax from something, you effectively get more of it. You're removing a tax on *bringing capital home to the US.* This is a good thing no matter what is done with it, because it means our money isn't being used to build up another country. With the dividend being returned to stock holders, you have to realize that retirement plans are the biggest holders of dividend paying stock. Your parents, your grandma, just got a raise. Since they're living on fixed income, this has a very high stimulative effect. They buy something nicer at the grocery. They give their kids and grandkids a $20. This improves the economy from the bottom up. This is undoubtedly a good thing, and certainly much better than keeping that money overseas." }, { "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": "444747", "title": "", "text": "Two of the main ways that investors benefit financially from a stock are dividends and increases in the price of the stock. In the example as described, the benefits came primarily from dividends, leaving less benefits to be realized in terms of an increase in the value of the company. Another way to put that is that the company paid its profits to shareholders in the form of a dividend, instead of accumulating that as an increase in the value of the company. The company could have chosen to take those profits and reinvest them in growing the business, which would lead to lower dividends but (hopefully) an increase in the valuation of the stock, but they chose to pay dividends instead. This still rewards the investors, but share prices stay low." }, { "docid": "84213", "title": "", "text": "\"Dividend paying stocks are not \"\"better\"\" In particular shareholders will get taxed on the distribution while the company can most likely invest the money tax free in their operations. The shareholder then has the opportunity to decide when to pay the taxes when they sell their shares. Companies pay dividends for a couple of reasons.... 1.) To signal the strength of the company. 2.) To reward the shareholders (oftentimes the executives of the firm get rather large rewards without having to sell shares they control.) 3.) If they don't have suitable investment opportunities in their field. IE they don't have anything useful to do with the money.\"" }, { "docid": "274846", "title": "", "text": "The thing is, corporate taxes aren't paid on revenues or costs; they're paid on net income. Meaning no matter what happens, any investment the company makes that improves their net income automatically means more money for the company. So let's say 12% vs 14% tax. A 2% increase in tax means a 2% lower net ROI on the investment. But so long as the incremental improvement to your bottom line is there, the investment is sound, with or without taxes. EVEN at a 50% corporate tax rate. You hire one more person at $60k/yr and they make $120k/yr in net income for you. You still keep $30k of the profits. It's an incremental increase regardless. And if that person doesn't make you money? Say the incremental benefit is 0? Well your net income just dropped $60/yr. And you just paid $30k less in taxes. Meaning the true cost of that hire is $30k to your bottom line. Where it hurts business is that your retained earnings don't build up as fast. It makes the next investment harder to make is all. And as a corporation, if you're not paying dividends you need to keep reinvesting your retained earnings./" }, { "docid": "308693", "title": "", "text": "1) What's the point of paying a dividend if the stock price automatically decreases? Don't the shareholders just break even? When the company earns cash beyond what is needed for expenses, the value of the firm increases. As a shareholder, you own a piece of that increased value as soon as the company earns it. When the dividend is paid, the value of the firm decreases, but you break even on the dividend transaction. The benefit to you in holding the company's shares is the continually increasing value, whether paid out to you, or retained. Be careful not to confuse the value of the firm with the stock price. The stock price is ever-changing, in the short-term driven mostly by investor emotion. Over the long term, by far the largest effect on stock price is earnings. Take an extreme, and simplistic example. The company never grows or shrinks, earnings are always the same, there is no inflation :) , and they pay everything out in dividends. By the reasoning above, the firm value never changes, so over the long-term the stock price will never change, but you still get your quarterly dividends." }, { "docid": "317711", "title": "", "text": "This really comes down to tax structuring (which I am not an expert on), for public companies the acquiror almost always pays for the cash to prevent any taxable drawdown of overseas accounts, dividend taxes suck, etc. For a private company, first the debt gets swept, then special dividend out - dividends received by the selling corporate entity benefit from a tax credit plus it reduces the selling price of the equity, reducing capital gains taxes." }, { "docid": "61518", "title": "", "text": "\"Your assertion that you will not be selling anything is at odds with the idea that you will be doing tax loss harvesting. Tax loss harvesting always involves some selling (you sell stocks that have fallen in price and lock in the capital losses, which gives you a break on your taxes). If you absolutely prohibit your advisor from selling, then you will not be able to do tax loss harvesting (in that case, why are you using an advisor at all?). Tax loss harvesting has nothing to do with your horizon nor the active/passive difference, really. As a practical matter, a good tax loss harvesting plan involves mechanically selling losers and immediately putting the money in another stock with more-or-less similar risk so your portfolio doesn't change much. In this way you get a stable portfolio that performs just like a static portfolio but gives you a tax benefit each year. The IRS officially prohibits this practice via the \"\"wash sale rule\"\" that says you can't buy a substantially identical asset within a short period of time. However, though two stocks have similar risk, they are not generally substantially similar in a legal sense, so the IRS can't really beat you in court and they don't try. Basically you can't just buy the same stock again. The roboadvisor is advertising that they will perform this service, keeping your portfolio pretty much static in terms of risk, in such a way that your tax benefit is maximized and you don't run afoul of the IRS.\"" }, { "docid": "470725", "title": "", "text": "\"Let me start with a somewhat sarcastic statement: There are probably as many things done to analyze a stock as there are people doing the analysis! That said, at a general level an analyst researches the historical performance of the company at a fairly detailed level (operations within divisions of the company, product development cycles within divisions, expenses vs income trends for each division and product, marketing costs, customer acquisition costs, etc); gathers information about what the company is doing now AND planning to do in the future -- often by a discussion with principles at the company; establishes a view on related macro-economic trends, sector and industry trends, demographic trends, etc.; and combines it all to forecast a change in revenues, margins, free cash flow, dividends, etc. over a period of time. They then apply statistics that relate those numbers to stock price in order to imply stock prices and price ranges over those same periods. Finally, depending on how those stock prices compare to the current stock price, they'll classify the stock as Buy, Sell, Hold, etc. This sounds like alot of work. And it generally is if you get detailed about it, which is what professionals or significant money managers are doing. However, there are also lots of arm-chair analysts posting their output on any number of financial sites (Seeking Alpha, Motley Fool, etc.) if you'd like to really explore the range of detail some people consider as a \"\"stock analysis\"\". That sounds more negative than I intended it to be, so let me clarify that I think some of these write-ups are really quite good IMO.\"" }, { "docid": "402437", "title": "", "text": "\"&gt; The base value from infrastructure is derived on a per-capita basis. It is a \"\"fixed cost\"\" as opposed to a variable one. In other words, roads are just as useful to me as they are to you regardless of my net worth. A1: Misleading: Infrastructure is useful to those who use it more independently of classifying it as [fixed vs variable](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed_cost). Take the FAA for example. The poor who cannot afford a plane ticket and/or order things via next-day air derive very little benefit from the FAA compared to a person who owns their own aircraft and can fly out at a moments notice knowing full well they can file a flight plan and communicate with a network of airports to ensure their plane will not crash into any other jets. &gt;A tank, a missile, a police officer protects me the same as it does anyone else. A2: But, A person with more net worth has more to lose than a person with low net worth. Therefore, even independent of A1 above, your statement is false. Those examples protect those with more property/net-worth/etc more-so than those with less. &gt; B) As a percentage of income, infrastructure is far more valuable to low-income individuals than high-income individuals It depends on the infrastructure: But there is far more infrastructure protecting the wealthy than the poor. Your example is the stock market. Why should the vast majority of people pay for SEC and rules and regulations to require/enforce honest filings when they cannot afford stock? Who benefits from SEC infrastructure. You and I do. Value to poor as a percentage of income = 0% . Value to rich &gt; 0% . QED. Your roads argument as an example of poor using more infrastructure than the rich is a bad one. The poor are more likely to take public transportation and/or work within 5 miles of their residence. The rich are more likely to have multiple cars, live in gated areas far from work and take long road trips. Staying at home to work is a function of more than just owning stock. There are at-home-parents, IT professionals, programmers, VOIP operators, etc, all working from home and completely independent of road use. &gt; C) The activities of business owners generate massive tax revenues. These far outweigh their personal utility from infrastructure. C1: \"\"personal utility\"\" You are mixing corporate and personal taxes and yet calling out \"\"personal\"\" utility. Unless you are talking about business owners flowing income to personal income (e.g. S-Corp) the mixing of terms is unfortunate because both business and people use infrastructure and both should pay for it. C2: \"\"Far outweigh\"\" Not true: See examples A1 and A2 above. And I'll go one more. Taxes on businesses are on NET revenue not gross revenue (ignoring things like SS and FICA). You probably invest in businesses with dividends and there is an incentive to keep a net revenue that can be distributed to stockholders. But in the private world there is no such motivation. In fact there is an anti-motivation to show profit as low as possible to limit tax liability. This has led to many \"\"hacks\"\" of the tax code/expenses to make sure that businesses end up with negative tax liability or an effective rate that is close to 0. How many poor people can claim negative tax liability? Again 0 &gt; not-zero. &gt;D) Society captures the majority of individual commercial efforts (estimates vary, but typically 85%). In other words, if I generate $10.00 of value as an entrepreneur, I will realistically be able to capture only $1.50 of that. D1: wat? Vague. Not all commercial efforts have a positive impact on the community. Irrelevant since we are talking about use vs cost. etc.\"" }, { "docid": "118786", "title": "", "text": "I wrote about this in another answer: You can sell the scrip dividend in the market; the capital gain from this sale may fall below the annual tax-free allowance for capital gains, in which case you don't pay any capital gains tax on that amount. For a cash dividend, however, there isn't a minimum taxable amount, so you would owe dividend tax on the entire dividend (and may therefore pay more taxes on a cash dividend). Since you haven't sold the shares in the market yet, you haven't earned any income on the shares. You don't owe taxes on the scrip until you sell the shares and earn capital gains on them. HMRC is very explicit about this, in CG33800: It is quite common for a company, particularly a quoted company, to offer its shareholders the option of receiving additional shares instead of a cash dividend. The expression `stock or scrip dividend' is used to describe shares issued in such circumstances. The basic position under tax law is that when a company makes a bonus issue of shares no distribution arises, and the bonus issue of shares is not income for tax purposes in the hands of the recipient. Obviously, if this is an issue for you, talk to a tax professional to make sure you get it right." }, { "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": "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": "561636", "title": "", "text": "You're misunderstanding the concept of retirement savings. IRA distributions are taxed, in their entirety, as ordinary income. If you withdraw before the retirement age, additional 10% penalty is added. Investment income has preferential treatment - long term capital gains and qualified dividends are taxed at lower rates than ordinary income. However, IRA contributions are tax deductible. I.e.: you don't pay taxes on the amounts contributed to the IRA when you earned the money, only when you withdraw. In the mean time, the money is growing, tax free, based on your investments. Anything inside the IRA is tax free, including dividends, distributions (from funds to your IRA, not from IRA to you), capital gains, etc. This is very powerful, when taking into account the compounding effect of reinvesting your dividends/sale proceeds without taking a chunk out for taxes. Consider you make an investment in a fund that appreciated 100% in half a year. You cash out to reinvest in something less volatile to lock the gains. In a regular account - you pay taxes when you sell, based on your brackets. In the IRA you reinvest all of your sale proceeds. That would be ~25-35% more of the gains to reinvest and continue working for you! However, if you decide to withdraw - you pay ordinary rate taxes on the whole amount. If you would invest in a single fund for 30 years in a regular account - you'd pay 20% capital gains tax (on the appreciation, not the dividends). In the IRA, if you invest in the same fund for the same period - you'll pay your ordinary income rates. However, the benefit of reinvesting dividends tax-free softens the blow somewhat, but that's much harder to quantify. Bottom line: if you want to plan for retirement - plan for retirment. Otherwise - IRA is not an investment vehicle. Also consider Roth IRA/conversions. Roth IRA has the benefit of tax free distributions at retirement. If your current tax bracket is at 20%, for example, contributing $5K to Roth IRA instead of a traditional will cost you $1K of taxes now, but will save you all the taxes during the retirement (for the distributions from the Roth IRA). It may be very much worth your while, especially if you can contribute directly to Roth IRA (there are some income limitations and phaseouts). You can withdraw contributions (but not earnings) from Roth IRA - something you cannot do with a traditional IRA." }, { "docid": "558635", "title": "", "text": "I don't think it makes sense to allow accounting numbers that you are not sure how to interpret as being a sell sign. If you know why the numbers are weird and you feel that the reason for it bodes ill about the future, and if you think there's a reason this has not been accounted for by the market, then you might think about selling. The stock's performance will depend on what happens in the future. Financials just document the past, and are subject to all kinds of lumpiness, seasonality, and manipulation. You might benefit from posting a link to where you got your financials. Whenever one computes something like a dividend payout ratio, one must select a time period over which to measure. If the company had a rough quarter in terms of earnings but chose not to reduce dividends because they don't expect the future to be rough, that would explain a crazy high dividend ratio. Or if they were changing their capital structure. Or one of many other potentially benign things. Accounting numbers summarize a ton of complex workings of the company and many ratios we look at could be defined in several different ways. I'm afraid that the answer to your question about how to interpret things is in the details, and we are not looking at the same details you are." }, { "docid": "580576", "title": "", "text": "&gt; they can be taxed at the long term capital gains rate, whereas dividends are subject to a higher tax rate. That's not true, is it? I'm fairly sure they're taxed at the same rate now. Buybacks are still better for shareholders, though, because those who don't want to sell have the option of just holding the stock. With dividends, everyone gets a dividend and the associated tax hit, whether they want it or not. Edit: Oh, right. Ordinary dividends are taxed as ordinary income; qualified dividends are not. But aren't qualified dividends the modal type?" } ]

[ { "docid": "379311", "title": "", "text": "Now company A has been doing ok for couple of weeks, but then due to some factors in that company its stock has been tanking heavily and doesn't appear to have a chance to recover. In this kind of scenario, what does happen? In this scenario, if that company is included in the index being tracked, you will continue holding until such time that the index is no longer including that company. Index funds are passively managed because they simply hold the securities contained in the index and seek to keep the allocations of the fund in line with the proportions of the index being tracked. In an actively managed fund the fund manager would try to hedge losses and make stock/security picks. If the manager thought a particular company had bad news coming maybe they would offload some or all the position. In an index fund, the fund follows the index on good days and bad and the managers job is to match the asset allocations of the index, not to pick stocks." } ]

[ { "docid": "568315", "title": "", "text": "In your case I think you are doing just fine. Index funds, by their nature, have lower transaction costs and fewer taxable events than actively managed funds, good work. Index funds do not preclude the generation of dividends, and by their nature they probably generate slightly more than actively managed funds. You could take capital gain or dividend or both distributions, rather than reinvest them, if paying the taxes are a hardship. Otherwise look at the taxes you pay as your contributions to these funds. It stinks, but this is why 401K/IRA were rather revolutionary when they were formed. It was a really good deal to not have people's capital gains eaten by taxes when they occurred. Now its old hat, but it was pretty darn cool at the time. Should you prefer VTMSX rather than VFIAX? We can't really make the call on that one. Which one will perform better after taxes? Its anyone's guess. It is kind of a good problem to have." }, { "docid": "255902", "title": "", "text": "\"First, two preliminaries, to address good points people made in comments. As AbraCadaver noted, before you move your $30k to something that might lose money, make sure you have enough cash to serve as an emergency fund in case you lose your income. Especially remember that big stock market crashes often go hand-in-hand with widespread layoffs. Also, you mentioned that you're maxed out in a 401k. As JoeTaxpayer hinted, this could very well already be invested in stocks, and, if it isn't, probably a big part of it should be. Regarding your $30k, you don't need to pay anybody. In general, fees and expenses can form a big drag on your investments, and it's good to avoid them as much as possible. In particular, especially with \"\"only\"\" $30k, it's unlikely that advisers can save you more than they cost. Also, all financial advisers have a cost: the \"\"free\"\" ones usually push you into investing in expensive funds that make them money at your expense. In that regard, keep in mind that, unlike a lawyer or a doctor, a financial adviser is not required by law to give advice that's in your best interest. When investing, there is a pretty short list of important considerations that you should keep in mind: (If anyone has any other points they think are similarly important, feel free to suggest an edit.) Practically speaking, I'd suggest investing in index funds. These are mutual funds that invest very broadly, in a \"\"passive\"\" way that doesn't spend a lot of effort (and money) trying to pick individual high-performing stocks or anything like that. Index funds provide a lot of diversification and tend to have low expense ratios. (Other, \"\"actively managed\"\" funds tend to be more expensive and often don't outperform index funds anyway.) If you're saving for retirement, there are even target date funds that are themselves composed of a small number of index funds (often domestic and international stocks and bonds), and will increase the proportion invested in bonds (safer) as they get closer to a target retirement date. See, for example the Vanguard Target Retirement 2045 fund. A fund like that one might be all you need if you are saving for retirement. Finally, you can invest online without paying any advisers. Not all companies are created equal, however; do your research. I personally highly recommend Vanguard, since they have a wide variety of no-load index funds and tend to have very low expense ratios. (No-load means you don't have to pay a fee to buy and sell.) Part of why they are inexpensive is that, unlike most financial companies, they are actually a cooperative owned by those who invest in their funds, so they don't need to try and milk a profit out of you. (Don't let that suggest that they're some \"\"small-potatoes hippie firm\"\", though: they're actually one of the largest.) I hope I helped. Keep posting if you have more questions!\"" }, { "docid": "355108", "title": "", "text": "\"I'll give the TLDR answer. 1) You can't forecast the price direction. If you get it right you got lucky. If you think you get it right consistently you are either a statistical anomaly or a victim of confirmation bias. Countless academic studies show that you can not do this. 2) You reduce volatility and, importantly, left-tail risk by going to an index tracking ETF or mutual fund. That is, Probability(Gigantic Loss) is MUCH lower in an index tracker. What's the trade off? The good thing is there is NO tradeoff. Your expected return does not go down in the same way the risk goes down! 3) Since point (1) is true, you are wasting time analysing companies. This has the opportunity cost of not earning $ from doing paid work, which can be thought of as a negative return. \"\"With all the successful investors (including myself on a not-infrequent basis) going for individual companies directly\"\" Actually, academic studies show that individual investors are the worst performers of all investors in the stock market.\"" }, { "docid": "384983", "title": "", "text": "\"You mentioned three concepts: (1) trading (2) diversification (3) buy and hold. Trading with any frequency is for people who want to manage their investments as a hobby or profession. You do not seem to be in that category. Diversification is a critical element of any investment strategy. No matter what you do, you should be diversified. All the way would be best (this means owning at least some of every asset out there). The usual way to do this is to own a mutual or index fund. Or several. These funds own hundreds or thousands of stocks, so that buying the fund instantly diversifies you. Buy and hold is the only reasonable approach to a portfolio for someone who is not interested in spending a lot of time managing it. There's no reason to think a buy-and-hold portfolio will underperform a typical traded portfolio, nor that the gains will come later. It's the assets in the portfolio that determine how aggressive/risky it is, not the frequency with which it is traded. This isn't really a site for specific recommendations, but I'll provide a quick idea: Buy a couple of index funds that cover the whole universe of investments. Index funds have low expenses and are the cheapest/easiest way to diversify. Buy a \"\"total stock market\"\" fund and a \"\"total bond fund\"\" in a ratio that you like. If you want, also buy an \"\"international fund.\"\" If you want specific tickers and ratios, another forum would be better(or just ask your broker or 401(k) provider). The bogleheads forum is one that I respect where people are very happy to give and debate specific recommendations. At the end of the day, responsibly managing your investment portfolio is not rocket science and shouldn't occupy a lot of time or worry. Just choose a few funds with low expenses that cover all the assets you are really interested in, put your money in them in a reasonable-ish ratio (no one knows that the best ratio is) and then forget about it.\"" }, { "docid": "403977", "title": "", "text": "I'd say neither. Index Funds mimic whatever index. Some stocks that are in the index are good investment opportunities, others not so much. I'm guessing the Bond Index Funds do the same. As for Gold... did you notice how much gold has risen lately? Do you think it will keep on rising like that? For which period? (Hint: if your timespan is less than 10 years, you really shouldn't invest). Investing is about buying low, and selling high. Gold is high, don't touch it. If you want to invest in funds, look at 4 or 5 star Morningstar rated funds. My advisors suggest Threadneedle (Lux) US Equities DU - LU0096364046 with a 4 star rating as the best American fund at this time. However, they are not favoring American stocks at this moment... so maybe you should stay away from the US for now. Have you looked at the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, China) countries?" }, { "docid": "501153", "title": "", "text": "\"From How are indexes weighted?: Market-capitalization weighted indexes (or market cap- or cap-weighted indexes) weight their securities by market value as measured by capitalization: that is, current security price * outstanding shares. The vast majority of equity indexes today are cap-weighted, including the S&P 500 and the FTSE 100. In a cap-weighted index, changes in the market value of larger securities move the index’s overall trajectory more than those of smaller ones. If the fund you are referencing is an ETF then there may be some work to do to figure out what underlying securities to use when handling Creation and Redemption units as an ETF will generally have shares created in 50,000 shares at a time through Authorized Participants. If the fund you are referencing is an open-end fund then there is still cash flows to manage in the fund as the fund has create and redeem shares in on a daily basis. Note in both cases that there can be updates to an index such as quarterly rebalancing of outstanding share counts, changes in members because of mergers, acquisitions or spin-offs and possibly a few other factors. How to Beat the Benchmark has a piece that may also be useful here for those indices with many members from 1998: As you can see, its TE is also persistently positive, but if anything seems to be declining over time. In fact, the average net TE for the whole period is +0.155% per month, or an astounding +1.88% pa net after expenses. The fund expense ratio is 0.61% annually, for a whopping before expense TE of +2.5% annually. This is once again highly statistically significant, with p values of 0.015 after expenses and 0.0022 before expenses. (The SD of the TE is higher for DFSCX than for NAESX, lowering its degree of statistical significance.) It is remarkable enough for any fund to beat its benchmark by 2.5% annually over 17 years, but it is downright eerie to see this done by an index fund. To complete the picture, since 1992 the Vanguard Extended Index Fund has beaten its benchmark (the Wilshire 4500) by 0.56% per year after expenses (0.81% net of expenses), and even the Vanguard Index Trust 500 has beaten its benchmark by a razor thin 0.08% annually before (but not after) expenses in the same period. So what is going on here? A hint is found in DFA's 1996 Reference Guide: The 9-10 Portfolio captures the return behavior of U.S. small company stocks as identified by Rolf Banz and other academic researchers. Dimensional employs a \"\"patient buyer\"\" discount block trading strategy which has resulted in negative total trading costs, despite the poor liquidity of small company stocks. Beginning in 1982, Ibbotson Associates of Chicago has used the 9-10 Portfolio results to calculate the performance of small company stocks for their Stocks, Bonds, Bills, and Inflation yearbook. A small cap index fund cannot possibly own all of the thousands of stocks in its benchmark; instead it owns a \"\"representative sample.\"\" Further, these stocks are usually thinly traded, with wide bid/ask spreads. In essence what the folks at DFA learned was that they could tell the market makers in these stocks, \"\"Look old chaps, we don't have to own your stock, and unless you let us inside your spread, we'll pitch our tents elsewhere. Further, we're prepared to wait until a motivated seller wishes to unload a large block.\"\" In a sense, this gives the fund the luxury of picking and choosing stocks at prices more favorable than generally available. Hence, higher long term returns. It appears that Vanguard did not tumble onto this until a decade later, but tumble they did. To complete the picture, this strategy works best in the thinnest markets, so the excess returns are greatest in the smallest stocks, which is why the positive TE is greatest for the DFA 9-10 Fund, less in the Vanguard Small Cap Fund, less still in the Vanguard Index Extended Fund, and minuscule with the S&P500. There are some who say the biggest joke in the world of finance is the idea of value added active management. If so, then the punch line seems to be this: If you really want to beat the indexes, then you gotta buy an index fund.\"" }, { "docid": "297568", "title": "", "text": "There are three basic concepts finance (as far as I'm concerned). Liquidity is basically an asset's spendability. Assets range in liquidity from cash (very liquid) to real estate (not very liquid). You can spend cash immediately, while real estate must first be converted to cash. Another important concept is your time horizon. When do you need your money. Money you need in the near term should be kept in very liquid assets, while money you won't need for a significantly long time can be tied in to something much less liquid. Volatility is the degree to which an assets value is predictable from day to day. Cash and guaranteed savings accounts have very low volatility, while a stock portfolio will fluctuate in value from day to day, sometimes a lot and sometimes you can lose your initial investment. So really, you need to determine what you need or want this money for, and depending on when you'll need it you can make decisions about whether or not to invest it, or keep it in a savings account, or keep it in literal actual cash. Your TFSA is maxed for the year, so that's out. Do you have an emergency fund? Do you want to travel or have other more near term desires that cost money? If you have a solid financial foundation and already have an emergency fund, you may want to set up a brokerage account and invest in an index fund. You should not invest money in the stock market unless you are ready to leave it there for at least a few years. Stocks are volatile but over a long enough period the market generally goes up. In your search for the right index fund, watch out for fees. Most big brokers will have a list of funds you can invest in with no up front fees and no commission. The fund itself will charge an expense ratio, look for an index fund with an expense ratio around 0.10%. This means you'll pay 0.10% of your holdings each year to the fund manager. No matter how much money we're talking about, I wouldn't put more than half in the market. Dip your toe in, get used to the value fluctuating. Don't start reading about technical analysis and derivative trading. Just put your money in a very low fee big market index and let it ride." }, { "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": "476517", "title": "", "text": "Your idea is a good one, but, as usual, the devil is in the details, and implementation might not be as easy as you think. The comments on the question have pointed out your Steps 2 and 4 are not necessarily the best way of doing things, and that perhaps keeping the principal amount invested in the same fund instead of taking it all out and re-investing it in a similar, but different, fund might be better. The other points for you to consider are as follows. How do you identify which of the thousands of conventional mutual funds and ETFs is the average-risk / high-gain mutual fund into which you will place your initial investment? Broadly speaking, most actively managed mutual fund with average risk are likely to give you less-than-average gains over long periods of time. The unfortunate truth, to which many pay only Lipper service, is that X% of actively managed mutual funds in a specific category failed to beat the average gain of all funds in that category, or the corresponding index, e.g. S&P 500 Index for large-stock mutual funds, over the past N years, where X is generally between 70 and 100, and N is 5, 10, 15 etc. Indeed, one of the arguments in favor of investing in a very low-cost index fund is that you are effectively guaranteed the average gain (or loss :-(, don't forget the possibility of loss). This, of course, is also the argument used against investing in index funds. Why invest in boring index funds and settle for average gains (at essentially no risk of not getting the average performance: average performance is close to guaranteed) when you can get much more out of your investments by investing in a fund that is among the (100-X)% funds that had better than average returns? The difficulty is that which funds are X-rated and which non-X-rated (i.e. rated G = good or PG = pretty good), is known only in hindsight whereas what you need is foresight. As everyone will tell you, past performance does not guarantee future results. As someone (John Bogle?) said, when you invest in a mutual fund, you are in the position of a rower in rowboat: you can see where you have been but not where you are going. In summary, implementation of your strategy needs a good crystal ball to look into the future. There is no such things as a guaranteed bond fund. They also have risks though not necessarily the same as in a stock mutual fund. You need to have a Plan B in mind in case your chosen mutual fund takes a longer time than expected to return the 10% gain that you want to use to trigger profit-taking and investment of the gain into a low-risk bond fund, and also maybe a Plan C in case the vagaries of the market cause your chosen mutual fund to have negative return for some time. What is the exit strategy?" }, { "docid": "231863", "title": "", "text": "\"The \"\"ideal world\"\" index fund of any asset class is a perfect percentage holding of all underlying assets with immediate rebalancing that aligns to every change in the index weighting while trading in a fully liquid market with zero transaction costs. One finance text book that describes this is Introduction to Finance: Markets, Investments, and Financial Management, see chapter 11. Practically, the transaction costs and liquidity make this unworkable. There are several deviations between what the \"\"ideal world algorithm\"\" (\"\"the algorithm\"\") says you should do and what is actually done. Each of these items addresses a real-world solution to various costs of managing a passive index fund. (And they are good solutions.) However, any deviation from the ideal index fund will have a risk. An investor evaluating their choices is left to pick the lowest fees with the least deviation from the ideal index fund. (It is customary to ignore whether the results are in excess or deficit to the ideal). So your formula is: This is also described in the above book.\"" }, { "docid": "328754", "title": "", "text": "\"Switching to only 401k or only SPY? Both bad ideas. Read on. You need multiple savings vehicles. 401k, Roth IRA, emergency fund. You can/should add others for long term savings goals and wealth building. Though you could combine the non-tax-advantaged accounts and keep track of your minimum (representing the emergency fund). SPY is ETF version of SPDR index mutual fund tracking the S&P 500 index. Index funds buy weighted amounts of members of their index by an algorithm to ensure that the total holdings of the fund model the index that they track. They use market capitalization and share prices and other factors to automatically rebalance. Individual investors do not directly affect the composition or makeup of the S&P500, at least not visibly. Technically, very large trades might have a visible effect on the index makeup, but I suspect the size of the trade would be in the billions. An Electronically Traded Fund is sold by the share and represents one equal share of the underlying fund, as divided equally amongst all the shareholders. You put dollars into a fund, you buy shares of an ETF. In the case of an index ETF, it allows you to \"\"buy\"\" a fractional share of the underlying index such as the S&P 500. For SPY, 10 SPY shares represent one S&P basket. Targeted retirement plan funds combine asset allocation into one fund. They are a one stop shop for a diversified allocation. Beware the fees though. Always beware the fees. Fidelity offers a huge assortment of plans. You should look into what is available for you after you decide how you will proceed. More later. SPY is a ETF, think of it as a share of stock. You can go to a bank, broker, or what have you and set up an account and buy shares of it. Then you have x shares of SPY which is the ETF version of SPDR which is an index mutual fund. If the company is matching the first 10% of your income on a 1:1 basis, that would be the best I've heard of in the past two decades, even with the 10 year vesting requirement. If this is them matching 1 dollar in 10 that you contribute to 401k, it may be the worst I've ever heard of, especially with 10 year vesting. Typical is 3-5% match, 3-5 year vesting. Bottom line, that match is free money. And the tax advantage should not be ignored, even if there is no match. Research: I applaud your interest. The investments you make now will have the greatest impact on your retirement. Here's a scenario: If you can figure out how to live on 50% of your take home pay (100k * 0.90 * 0.60 * 0.5 / 12) (salary with first 10% in 401k at roughly 60% after taxes, social security, medicare, etc. halved and divided by 12 for a monthly amount), you'll have 2250 a month to live on. Since you're 28 and single, it's far easier for you to do than someone who is 50 and married with kids. That leaves you with 2250 a month to max out 401k and Roth and invest the rest in wealth building. After four or five years the amount your investments are earning will begin to be noticeable. After ten years or so, they will eclipse your contributions. At that point you could theoretically live of the income. This works with any percentage rate, and the higher your savings rate is, the lower your cost of living amount is, and the faster you'll hit an investment income rate that matches your cost of living amount. At least that's the early retirement concept. The key, as far as I can tell, is living frugally, identifying and negating wasteful spending, and getting the savings rate high without forcing yourself into cheap behavior. Reading financial independence blog posts tells me that once they learn to live frugally, they enjoy it. It's a lot of work, and planning, but if you want to be financially independent, you are definitely in a good position to consider it. Other notes:\"" }, { "docid": "470687", "title": "", "text": "There are at least a couple of ways you could view this to my mind: Make an Excel spreadsheet and use the IRR function to compute the rate of return you are having based on money being added. Re-invested distributions in a mutual fund aren't really an additional investment as the Net Asset Value of the fund will drop by the amount of the distribution aside from market fluctuation. This is presuming you want a raw percentage that could be tricky to compare to other funds without doing more than a bit of work in a way. Look at what is the fund's returns compared to both the category and the index it is tracking. The tracking error is likely worth noting as some index funds could lag the index by a sizable margin and thus may not be that great. At the same time there may exist cases where an index fund isn't quite measuring up that well. The Small-Growth Indexing Anomaly would be the William Bernstein article from 2001 that has some facts and figures for this that may be useful." }, { "docid": "70702", "title": "", "text": "\"This is not a direct answer to your question, but you might want to consider whether you want to have a financial planner at all. Would a large mutual fund company or brokerage serve your needs better than a bank? You are still quite young and so have been contributing to IRAs for only a few years. Also, the wording in your question suggests that your IRA investments have not done spectacularly well, and so it is reasonable to infer that your IRA is not a large amount, or at least not as large as what it would be 30 years from now. At this level of investment, it would be difficult for you to find a financial planner who spends all that much time looking after your interests. That you should get away from your current planner, presumably a mid-level employee in what is typically called the trust division of the bank, is a given. But, to go to another bank (or even to a different employee in the same bank), where you will also likely be nudged towards investing your IRA in CDs, annuities, and a few mutual funds with substantial sales charges and substantial annual expense fees, might just take you from the frying pan into the fire. You might want to consider transferring your IRA to a large mutual fund company and investing it in something simple like one of their low-cost (meaning small annual expense ratio) index funds. The Couch Potato portfolio suggests equal amounts invested in a no-load S&P 500 Index fund and a no-load Bond Index fund, or a 75%-25% split favoring the stock index fund (in view of your age and the fact that the IRA should be a long-term investment). But the point is, you can open an IRA account, have the money transferred from your IRA account with the bank, and make the investments on-line all by yourself instead of having a financial advisor do it on your behalf and charge you a fee for doing so (not to mention possibly screwing it up.) You can set up Automated Investment too; the mutual fund company will gladly withdraw money from your checking account and invest it in whatever fund(s) you choose. All this is not complicated at all. If you would like to follow the Couch Potato strategy and rebalance your portfolio once a year, you can do it by yourself too. If you want to invest in funds other than the S&P 500 Index fund, etc. most mutual fund companies offer a \"\"portfolio analysis\"\" and advice for a fee (and the fee is usually waived when the assets increase above certain levels - varies from company to company). You could thus have a portfolio analysis done each year, and hopefully it will be free after a few more years. Indeed, at that level, you also typically get one person assigned as your advisor, just as you have with a bank. Once you get the recommendations, you can choose to follow them or not, but you have control over how and where your IRA assets are invested. Over the years, as your IRA assets grow, you can branch out into investments other than \"\"staid\"\" index funds, but right now, having a financial planner for your IRA might not be worth it. Later, when you have more assets, by all means if you want to explore investing in specific stocks with a brokerage instead of sticking to mutual funds only but this might also mean phone calls urging you to sell Stock A right now, or buy hot Stock B today etc. So, one way of improving your interactions and have a better experience with your new financial planner is to not have a planner at all for a few years and do some of the work yourself.\"" }, { "docid": "24029", "title": "", "text": "\"Hmm, this would seem to be impossible by definition. The definition of an \"\"index fund\"\" is that it includes exactly the stocks that make up the index. Once you say \"\"... except for ...\"\" then what you want is not an index fund but something else. It's like asking, \"\"Can I be a vegetarian but still eat beef?\"\" Umm, no. There might be someone offering a mutual fund that has the particular combination of stocks that you want, resembling the stocks making up the index except with these exclusions. That wouldn't be an index fund at that point, but, etc. There are lots of funds out there with various ideological criteria. I don't know of one that matches your criteria. I'd say, search for the closest approximation you can find. You could always buy individual stocks yourself and create your own pseudo-index fund. Depending on how many stock are in the index you are trying to match and how much money you have to invest, it may not be possible to exactly match it mathematically, if you would have to buy fractions of shares. If the number of shares you had to buy was very small you might get killed on broker fees. And I'll upvote @user662852's answer for being a pretty close approximation to what you want.\"" }, { "docid": "454596", "title": "", "text": "\"There still is some buying and selling to do in a passively-managed fund. The stocks might pay dividends. If the fund manager didn't reinvest these dividends, the fund would begin to accumulate a cash position, which would cause it to stray from being an index fund. Stocks come and go from an index as well; if the fund is to maintain a composition that matches a particular index, this must be taken into account as well. The role of the manager is to ensure that the fund maintains the composition that it was intended to replicate. It doesn't involve as much \"\"stock picking\"\" that active managers do. The manager has less leeway as to what s/he buys and sells, but there still is work involved.\"" }, { "docid": "39436", "title": "", "text": "\"The most fundamental answer is that when you short a stock (or an ETF), you short a specific number of shares on a specific day, and you probably don't adjust this much as the price wobbles goes up and down. But an inverse fund is not tied to a specific start date, like your own transaction is. It adjusts on an ongoing basis to maintain its full specified leverage at all times. If the underlying index goes up, it has to effectively \"\"buy in\"\" because its collateral is no longer sufficient to support its open position. On the other hand, if the underlying index goes down, that frees up collateral which is used to effectively short-sell more of the underlying. So by design it will buy high and sell low, and so any volatility will pump money out of the fund. I say \"\"effectively\"\" because inverse funds use derivatives and contracts, rather than actually shorting the underlying security. Which brings up the less fundamental issue. These derivatives and contracts are relatively opaque; the counter-parties are in it for their own benefit, not yours; and the people who run the fund get their expenses regardless of how you do, and they are hard for you to monitor. This is a hazardous combination.\"" }, { "docid": "408103", "title": "", "text": "Interesting to me. Index funds are known for hurting active management. Fund flows have been toward index funds, not active funds. But apparently S&amp;P and MSCI are making hundreds of millions just by licensing out the names of their most popular funds. Vanguard also had a sweetheart deal at one time: &gt; Index funds weren't always a big business, and S&amp;P didn't always know just how valuable the indexes it owned really were. Before the first ETF ever hit the market, S&amp;P agreed to a perpetual license with Vanguard that entitled the index owner to a maximum annual fee of $50,000 from Vanguard's premier index mutual fund, the Vanguard 500 Index Fund. &gt;As Vanguard popularized the index fund, S&amp;P began to realize just how much it had left on the table. By 2001, the Vanguard fund had $90 billion in assets &gt; To this day, Vanguard's premier S&amp;P 500 index fund is reportedly operating under its perpetual license, paying just $50,000 per year to S&amp;P Global, but subsequent funds based on S&amp;P's indexes are likely paying full freight. For S&amp;P, it was a very costly lesson to learn." }, { "docid": "67472", "title": "", "text": "One reason it matters whether or not you're beating the S&P 500 (or the Wilshire 5000, or whatever benchmark you choose to use) is to determine whether or not you'd be better off investing in an index fund (or some other investment vehicle) instead of pursuing whatever your current investment strategy happens to be. Even if your investment strategy makes money, earning what the S&P 500 has averaged over multiple decades (around 10%) with an index fund means a lot more money than a 5% return with an actively managed portfolio (especially when you consider factors like compound interest and inflation). I use the S&P 500 as one of my criteria for judging how well (or poorly) my financial adviser is doing for me. If his recommendations (or trading activity on my behalf, if authorized) are inferior to the S&P 500, for too long, then I have a basis to discontinue the relationship. Check out this Wikipedia entry on stock market indices. There are legitimate criticisms, but on the whole I think they are useful. As an aside, the reason I point to index funds specifically is that they are the one of the lowest-cost, fire-and-forget investment strategies around. If you compare the return of the S&P 500 index over multiple decades with most actively managed mutual funds, the S&P 500 index comes out ahead." }, { "docid": "159471", "title": "", "text": "Why don't you look at the actual funds and etfs in question rather than seeking a general conclusion about all pairs of funds and etfs? For example, Vanguard's total stock market index fund (VTSAX) and ETF (VTI). Comparing the two on yahoo finance I find no difference over the last 5 years visually. For a different pair of funds you may find something very slightly different. In many cases the index fund and ETF will not have the same benchmark and fees so comparisons get a little more cloudy. I recall a while ago there was an article that was pointing out that at the time emerging market ETF's had higher fees than corresponding index funds. For this reason I think you should examine your question on a case-by-case basis. Index fund and ETF returns are all publicly available so you don't have to guess." } ]

[ { "docid": "408524", "title": "", "text": "Index Funds & ETFs, if they are tracking the same index, will be the same in an ideal world. The difference would be because of the following factors: Expense ratio: i.e. the expense the funds charge. This varies and hence it would lead to a difference in performance. Tracking error: this means that there is a small percentage of error between the actual index composition and the fund composition. This is due to various reasons. Effectively this would result in the difference between values. Demand / Supply: with ETFs, the fund is traded on stock exchanges like a stock. If the general feeling is that the index is rising, it could lead to an increase in the price of the ETF. Index funds on the other hand would remain the same for the day and are less liquid. This results in a price increase / decrease depending on the market. The above explains the reason for the difference. Regarding which one to buy, one would need to consider other factors like: a) How easy is it to buy ETFs? Do you already hold Demat A/C & access to brokers to help you conduct the transaction or do you need to open an additional account at some cost. b) Normally funds do not need any account, but are you OK with less liquidity as it would take more time to redeem funds." } ]

[ { "docid": "473658", "title": "", "text": "ETFs offer the flexibility of stocks while retaining many of the benefits of mutual funds. Since an ETF is an actual fund, it has the diversification of its potentially many underlying securities. You can find ETFs with stocks at various market caps and style categories. You can have bond or mixed ETFs. You can even get ETFs with equal or fundamental weighting. In short, all the variety benefits of mutual funds. ETFs are typically much less expensive than mutual funds both in terms of management fees (expense ratio) and taxable gains. Most of them are not actively managed; instead they follow an index and therefore have a low turnover. A mutual fund may actively trade and, if not balanced with a loss, will generate capital gains that you pay taxes on. An ETF will produce gains only when shifting to keep inline with the index or you yourself sell. As a reminder: while expense ratio always matters, capital gains and dividends don't matter if the ETF or mutual fund is in a tax-advantaged account. ETFs have no load fees. Instead, because you trade it like a stock, you will pay a commission. Commissions are straight, up-front and perfectly clear. Much easier to understand than the various ways funds might charge you. There are no account minimums to entry with ETFs, but you will need to buy complete shares. Only a few places allow partial shares. It is generally harder to dollar-cost average into an ETF with regular automated investments. Also, like trading stocks, you can do those fancy things like selling short, buying on margin, options, etc. And you can pay attention to the price fluctuations throughout the day if you really want to. Things to make you pause: if you buy (no-load) mutual funds through the parent company, you'll get them at no commission. Many brokerages have No Transaction Fee (NTF) agreements with companies so that you can buy many funds for free. Still look out for that expense ratio though (which is probably paying for that NTF advantage). As sort of a middle ground: index funds can have very low expense ratios, track the same index as an ETF, can be tax-efficient or tax-managed, free to purchase, easy to dollar-cost average and easier to automate/understand. Further reading:" }, { "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": "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": "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": "519963", "title": "", "text": "I don't think it has to be either-or. You can profitably invest inside the SIMPLE. (Though I wouldn't put in any more than the 1% it takes to get the match.) Let's look at some scenarios. These assume salary of $50k/year so the numbers are easy. You can fill in your own numbers to see the outcome, but the percentages will be the same. Let it sit in cash in the SIMPLE. You put in 1%, your employer matches with 1%. Your account balance is $1,000 (at the end of the year), plus a small amount of interest. Cost to you is $500 from your gross pay. 100% return on your contributions, yay! Likely 0-1% real returns going forward; you'll be lucky to keep up with inflation over the long term. Short term not so bad. Buy shares of index ETFs in the SIMPLE; let's assume the fee works out to 10%. You put in 1%, employer matches 1%. Your contributions are $500, fees are $100, your balance is $900 in ETFs. 80% instant return, and possible 6-7% real long term returns going forward. Buy funds in the SIMPLE; assume the load is 5%, management fee is 1% and you can find something that behaves like an index fund (so it is theoretically comparable to above). 1% from you, 1% from employer. Your contributions are $500, load fees are $50, your balance is $950. 90% instant return, and possible 5-6% real long term returns going forward (assuming the 6-7% real returns of equities are reduced by the 1% management fee). (You didn't list out the fees, and they're probably different for the different fund choices, so fill in your own details and do the math.) Invest outside the SIMPLE in the same ETFs or equivalent no load index funds; let's assume you can do this with no fees. You put in the same 1% of your gross (ignoring any difference that might come from paying FICA) into a self directed traditional IRA. At the end of the year the balance is $500. So deciding whether or not to take the match is a no brainer: take it. Deciding whether you should hold cash, ETFs, or (one of two types of) funds in your SIMPLE is a little trickier." }, { "docid": "366847", "title": "", "text": "\"private investors that don't have the time or expertise for active investment. This may be known as every private investor. An index fund ensures average returns. The bulk of active trading is done by private institutions with bucketloads of experts studying the markets and AI scraping every bit of data it can get (from the news, stock market, the weather reports, etc...). Because of that, to get above average returns an average percent of the time, singular private investors have to drastically beat the average large team of individuals/software. Now that index ETF are becoming so fashionable, could there be a tipping point at which the market signals that active investors send become so diluted that this \"\"index ETF parasitism\"\" collapses? How would this look like and would it affect only those who invest in index ETF or would it affect the stock market more generally? To make this question perhaps more on-topic: Is the fact (or presumption) that index ETF rely indirectly on active investment decisions by other market participants, as explained above, a known source of concern for personal investment? This is a well-covered topic. Some people think this will be an issue. Others point out that it is a hard issue to bootstrap. I gravitate to this view. A small active market can support a large number of passive investors. If the number of active investors ever got too low, the gains & likelihood of gains that could be made from being an active investor would rise and generate more active investors. Private investing makes sense in a few cases. One example is ethics. Some people may not want to be invested, even indirectly, in certain companies.\"" }, { "docid": "370244", "title": "", "text": "Behind the scenes, mutual funds and ETFs are very similar. Both can vary widely in purpose and policies, which is why understanding the prospectus before investing is so important. Since both mutual funds and ETFs cover a wide range of choices, any discussion of management, assets, or expenses when discussing the differences between the two is inaccurate. Mutual funds and ETFs can both be either managed or index-based, high expense or low expense, stock or commodity backed. Method of investing When you invest in a mutual fund, you typically set up an account with the mutual fund company and send your money directly to them. There is often a minimum initial investment required to open your mutual fund account. Mutual funds sometimes, but not always, have a load, which is a fee that you pay either when you put money in or take money out. An ETF is a mutual fund that is traded like a stock. To invest, you need a brokerage account that can buy and sell stocks. When you invest, you pay a transaction fee, just as you would if you purchase a stock. There isn't really a minimum investment required as there is with a traditional mutual fund, but you usually need to purchase whole shares of the ETF. There is inherently no load with ETFs. Tax treatment Mutual funds and ETFs are usually taxed the same. However, capital gain distributions, which are taxable events that occur while you are holding the investment, are more common with mutual funds than they are with ETFs, due to the way that ETFs are structured. (See Fidelity: ETF versus mutual funds: Tax efficiency for more details.) That having been said, in an index fund, capital gain distributions are rare anyway, due to the low turnover of the fund. Conclusion When comparing a mutual fund and ETF with similar objectives and expenses and deciding which to choose, it more often comes down to convenience. If you already have a brokerage account and you are planning on making a one-time investment, an ETF could be more convenient. If, on the other hand, you have more than the minimum initial investment required and you also plan on making additional regular monthly investments, a traditional no-load mutual fund account could be more convenient and less expensive." }, { "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": "373501", "title": "", "text": "The minimum at Schwab to open an IRA is $1000. Why don't you check the two you listed to see what their minimum opening balance is? If you plan to go with ETFs, you want to ask them what their commission is for a minimum trade. In Is investing in an ETF generally your best option after establishing a Roth IRA? sheegaon points out that for the smaller investor, index mutual funds are cheaper than the ETFs, part due to commission, part the bid/ask spread." }, { "docid": "431884", "title": "", "text": "\"Although there is no single best answer to your situation, several other people have already suggest it in some form: always pay off your highest after-tax (!) interest loan first! That being said, you probably also have heard about the differentiation for good debt vs. bad debt. Good debt is considered a mortgage for buying your primary home or, as is the case here, debt for education. As far as I am concerned, those are pretty much the only two types of debt I'd ever tolerate. (There may be exceptions for health/medical reasons.) Everything else is consumer debt and my personal rule is, don't buy it if you don't have the money for it! Meaning, don't take on consumer debt. One other thing you may consider before accelerating paying off your student debt, the interest paid on it may be tax deductible. So you should look at what the true interest is on your student loan after taxes. If it is in the (very) low single digits, meaning between 1-3%, you may consider using the extra money towards an automatic investment plan into an ETF index fund. But that would be a question you should discuss with your tax accountant or financial adviser. It is also critical in that case that you don't view the money invested as \"\"found\"\" money later on, unless you have paid off all your debt. (This part is the most difficult for most people so be very cautious and conscious if you decide to go this route!) At any rate, congratulations on making so much progress paying off your debt! Keep it going.\"" }, { "docid": "270992", "title": "", "text": "The main difference between an ETF and a Mutual Fund is Management. An ETF will track a specific index with NO manager input. A Mutual Fund has a manager that is trying to choose securities for its fund based on the mandate of the fund. Liquidity ETFs trade like a stock, so you can buy at 10am and sell at 11 if you wish. Mutual Funds (most) are valued at the end of each business day, so no intraday trading. Also ETFs are similar to stocks in that you need a buyer/seller for the ETF that you want/have. Whereas a mutual fund's units are sold back to itself. I do not know of many if any liquity issues with an ETF, but you could be stuck holding it if you can not find a buyer (usually the market maker). Mutual Funds can be closed to trading, however it is rare. Tax treatment Both come down to the underlying holdings in the fund or ETF. However, more often in Mutual Funds you could be stuck paying someone else's taxes, not true with an ETF. For example, you buy an Equity Mutual Fund 5 years ago, you sell the fund yourself today for little to no gain. I buy the fund a month ago and the fund manager sells a bunch of the stocks they bought for it 10 years ago for a hefty gain. I have a tax liability, you do not even though it is possible that neither of us have any gains in our pocket. It can even go one step further and 6 months from now I could be down money on paper and still have a tax liability. Expenses A Mutual Fund has an MER or Management Expense Ratio, you pay it no matter what. If the fund has a positive return of 12.5% in any given year and it has an MER of 2.5%, then you are up 10%. However if the fund loses 7.5% with the same MER, you are down 10%. An ETF has a much smaller management fee (typically 0.10-0.95%) but you will have trading costs associated with any trades. Risks involved in these as well as any investment are many and likely too long to go into here. However in general, if you have a Canadian Stock ETF it will have similar risks to a Canadian Equity Mutual Fund. I hope this helps." }, { "docid": "440417", "title": "", "text": "\"Don't put money in things that you don't understand. ETFs won't kill you, ignorance will. The leveraged ultra long/short ETFs hold swaps that are essentially bets on the daily performance of the market. There is no guarantee that they will perform as designed at all, and they frequently do not. IIRC, in most cases, you shouldn't even be holding these things overnight. There aren't any hidden fees, but derivative risk can wipe out portions of the portfolio, and since the main \"\"asset\"\" in an ultra long/short ETF are swaps, you're also subject to counterparty risk -- if the investment bank the fund made its bet with cannot meet it's obligation, you're may lost alot of money. You need to read the prospectus carefully. The propectus re: strategy. The Fund seeks daily investment results, before fees and expenses, that correspond to twice the inverse (-2x) of the daily performance of the Index. The Fund does not seek to achieve its stated investment objective over a period of time greater than a single day. The prospectus re: risk. Because of daily rebalancing and the compounding of each day’s return over time, the return of the Fund for periods longer than a single day will be the result of each day’s returns compounded over the period, which will very likely differ from twice the inverse (-2x) of the return of the Index over the same period. A Fund will lose money if the Index performance is flat over time, and it is possible that the Fund will lose money over time even if the Index’s performance decreases, as a result of daily rebalancing, the Index’s volatility and the effects of compounding. See “Principal Risks” If you want to hedge your investments over a longer period of time, you should look at more traditional strategies, like options. If you don't have the money to make an option strategy work, you probably can't afford to speculate with leveraged ETFs either.\"" }, { "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": "27930", "title": "", "text": "Also, when they mean SP500 fund - it means that fund which invests in the top 500 companies in the SP Index, is my understanding correct? Yes that is right. In reality they may not be able to invest in all 500 companies in same proportion, but is reflective of the composition. I wanted to know whether India also has a company similar to Vanguard which offers low cost index funds. Almost all mutual fund companies offer a NIFTY index fund, both as mutual fund as well as ETF. You can search for index fund and see the total assets to find out which is bigger compared to others." }, { "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": "549270", "title": "", "text": "For most people, you don't want individual bonds. Unless you are investing very significant amounts of money, you are best off with bond funds (or ETFs). Here in Canada, I chose TDB909, a mutual fund which seeks to roughly track the DEX Universe Bond index. See the Canadian Couch Potato's recommended funds. Now, you live in the U.S. so would most likely want to look at a similar bond fund tracking U.S. bonds. You won't care much about Canadian bonds. In fact, you probably don't want to consider foreign bonds at all, due to currency risk. Most recommendations say you want to stick to your home country for your bond investments. Some people suggest investing in junk bonds, as these are likely to pay a higher rate of return, though with an increased risk of default. You could also do fancy stuff with bond maturities, too. But in general, if you are just looking at an 80/20 split, if you are just looking for fairly simple investments, you really shouldn't. Go for a bond fund that just mirrors a big, low-risk bond index in your home country. I mean, that's the implication when someone recommends a 60/40 split or an 80/20 split. Should you go with a bond mutual fund or with a bond ETF? That's a separate question, and the answer will likely be the same as for stock mutual funds vs stock ETFs, so I'll mostly ignore the question and just say stick with mutual funds unless you are investing at least $50,000 in bonds." }, { "docid": "328754", "title": "", "text": "\"Switching to only 401k or only SPY? Both bad ideas. Read on. You need multiple savings vehicles. 401k, Roth IRA, emergency fund. You can/should add others for long term savings goals and wealth building. Though you could combine the non-tax-advantaged accounts and keep track of your minimum (representing the emergency fund). SPY is ETF version of SPDR index mutual fund tracking the S&P 500 index. Index funds buy weighted amounts of members of their index by an algorithm to ensure that the total holdings of the fund model the index that they track. They use market capitalization and share prices and other factors to automatically rebalance. Individual investors do not directly affect the composition or makeup of the S&P500, at least not visibly. Technically, very large trades might have a visible effect on the index makeup, but I suspect the size of the trade would be in the billions. An Electronically Traded Fund is sold by the share and represents one equal share of the underlying fund, as divided equally amongst all the shareholders. You put dollars into a fund, you buy shares of an ETF. In the case of an index ETF, it allows you to \"\"buy\"\" a fractional share of the underlying index such as the S&P 500. For SPY, 10 SPY shares represent one S&P basket. Targeted retirement plan funds combine asset allocation into one fund. They are a one stop shop for a diversified allocation. Beware the fees though. Always beware the fees. Fidelity offers a huge assortment of plans. You should look into what is available for you after you decide how you will proceed. More later. SPY is a ETF, think of it as a share of stock. You can go to a bank, broker, or what have you and set up an account and buy shares of it. Then you have x shares of SPY which is the ETF version of SPDR which is an index mutual fund. If the company is matching the first 10% of your income on a 1:1 basis, that would be the best I've heard of in the past two decades, even with the 10 year vesting requirement. If this is them matching 1 dollar in 10 that you contribute to 401k, it may be the worst I've ever heard of, especially with 10 year vesting. Typical is 3-5% match, 3-5 year vesting. Bottom line, that match is free money. And the tax advantage should not be ignored, even if there is no match. Research: I applaud your interest. The investments you make now will have the greatest impact on your retirement. Here's a scenario: If you can figure out how to live on 50% of your take home pay (100k * 0.90 * 0.60 * 0.5 / 12) (salary with first 10% in 401k at roughly 60% after taxes, social security, medicare, etc. halved and divided by 12 for a monthly amount), you'll have 2250 a month to live on. Since you're 28 and single, it's far easier for you to do than someone who is 50 and married with kids. That leaves you with 2250 a month to max out 401k and Roth and invest the rest in wealth building. After four or five years the amount your investments are earning will begin to be noticeable. After ten years or so, they will eclipse your contributions. At that point you could theoretically live of the income. This works with any percentage rate, and the higher your savings rate is, the lower your cost of living amount is, and the faster you'll hit an investment income rate that matches your cost of living amount. At least that's the early retirement concept. The key, as far as I can tell, is living frugally, identifying and negating wasteful spending, and getting the savings rate high without forcing yourself into cheap behavior. Reading financial independence blog posts tells me that once they learn to live frugally, they enjoy it. It's a lot of work, and planning, but if you want to be financially independent, you are definitely in a good position to consider it. Other notes:\"" }, { "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": "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": "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": "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": "549270", "title": "", "text": "For most people, you don't want individual bonds. Unless you are investing very significant amounts of money, you are best off with bond funds (or ETFs). Here in Canada, I chose TDB909, a mutual fund which seeks to roughly track the DEX Universe Bond index. See the Canadian Couch Potato's recommended funds. Now, you live in the U.S. so would most likely want to look at a similar bond fund tracking U.S. bonds. You won't care much about Canadian bonds. In fact, you probably don't want to consider foreign bonds at all, due to currency risk. Most recommendations say you want to stick to your home country for your bond investments. Some people suggest investing in junk bonds, as these are likely to pay a higher rate of return, though with an increased risk of default. You could also do fancy stuff with bond maturities, too. But in general, if you are just looking at an 80/20 split, if you are just looking for fairly simple investments, you really shouldn't. Go for a bond fund that just mirrors a big, low-risk bond index in your home country. I mean, that's the implication when someone recommends a 60/40 split or an 80/20 split. Should you go with a bond mutual fund or with a bond ETF? That's a separate question, and the answer will likely be the same as for stock mutual funds vs stock ETFs, so I'll mostly ignore the question and just say stick with mutual funds unless you are investing at least $50,000 in bonds." }, { "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": "97836", "title": "", "text": "Most ETFs are index funds, meaning you get built in diversification so that any one stock going down won't hurt the overall performance much. You can also get essentially the same index funds by directly purchasing them from the mutual fund company. To buy an ETF you need a brokerage account and have to pay a transaction fee. Buying only $1000 at a time the broker transaction fee will eat too much of your money. You want to keep such fees way down below 0.1%. Pay attention to transaction fees and fund expense ratios. Or buy an equivalent index fund directly from the mutual fund company. This generally costs nothing in transaction fees if you have at least the minimum account value built up. If you buy every month or two you are dollar cost averaging, no matter what kind of account you are using. Keep doing that, even if the market values are going down. (Especially if the market values are going down!) If you can keep doing this then forget about certificates of deposit. At current rates you cannot build wealth with CDs." }, { "docid": "575509", "title": "", "text": "\"There's actually a lot of smaller questions in your question, so I'll answer just a few here. The standard bond index for high yield corporates is the Barclays Capital High Yield Corporate index, which is the basis for JNK. I am not familiar with the index behind HYG, the \"\"iBoxx $ Liquid High Yield index.\"\" The ETFs are managed quantitatively to try to track the index as closely as possible. AFAIK these ETFs do not attempt to take active positions. New issues are typically purchased with cash which is constantly coming in from interest and principal payments from other bonds. There is rarely a need to sell bonds just to buy new issues. Selling bonds is more common when a fund is experiencing redemptions. These ETFs and the high yield bonds they buy are not derivatives (your question seems to be confused on that point). The US Treasury is not directly involved in any way. They are indirectly involved, as they are indirectly involved in US equities markets or world markets for that matter, although perhaps they have greater influence in the bond world. Moody's has extensive studies of default rates by ratings.\"" }, { "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": "408524", "title": "", "text": "Index Funds & ETFs, if they are tracking the same index, will be the same in an ideal world. The difference would be because of the following factors: Expense ratio: i.e. the expense the funds charge. This varies and hence it would lead to a difference in performance. Tracking error: this means that there is a small percentage of error between the actual index composition and the fund composition. This is due to various reasons. Effectively this would result in the difference between values. Demand / Supply: with ETFs, the fund is traded on stock exchanges like a stock. If the general feeling is that the index is rising, it could lead to an increase in the price of the ETF. Index funds on the other hand would remain the same for the day and are less liquid. This results in a price increase / decrease depending on the market. The above explains the reason for the difference. Regarding which one to buy, one would need to consider other factors like: a) How easy is it to buy ETFs? Do you already hold Demat A/C & access to brokers to help you conduct the transaction or do you need to open an additional account at some cost. b) Normally funds do not need any account, but are you OK with less liquidity as it would take more time to redeem funds." }, { "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": "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": "327237", "title": "", "text": "The short answer to your question is yes. Index funds are about the easiest and most efficient diversified way to invest your money. Vanguard's are among the cheapest and best. Be aware, though, that passive income doesn't mean you do nothing for your money. In the case of investing, what you are doing is bearing risk. That is, you are being paid (on average) to put your money in a situation where you may lose money. If you keep your eye on the long-term prize, then when (not if) you sustain losses in your investment account, you will have the patience to leave the money in there. I'm a little confused by your wording about increasing your salary. Normally we think of index funds as a way to increase our wealth. If you are making new investments, presumably you have more salary than you need right now. Normal index funds will reinvest dividends automatically, so you will see the value of your investments rise but will not see any cash flows per se unless you are selling your holdings. If you want actual cash coming out of your investment, you can use ETF's to achieve the same type of investment and treat the dividends as a supplement to your income. Note, however, that some gains in your ETF will be in the form of capital gains and some will be dividends. Think more like 2% year per in dividend payments and the rest in capital gains. If your objective is to save for retirement, please consider investing through an IRA, Roth IRA, or through your 401(k). No need to give uncle sam a gift from your hard-earned money." }, { "docid": "391215", "title": "", "text": "Index funds: Some of the funds listed by US SIF are index funds. ETFs: ETFdb has a list, though it's pretty short at the moment." }, { "docid": "322725", "title": "", "text": "In the past 10 years there have been mutual funds that would act as a single bucket of stocks and bonds. A good example is Fidelity's Four In One. The trade off was a management fee for the fund in exchange for having to manage the portfolio itself and pay separate commissions and fees. These days though it is very simple and pretty cheap to put together a basket of 5-6 ETFs that would represent a balanced portfolio. Whats even more interesting is that large online brokerage houses are starting to offer commission free trading of a number of ETFs, as long as they are not day traded and are held for a period similar to NTF mutual funds. I think you could easily put together a basket of 5-6 ETFs to trade on Fidelity or TD Ameritrade commission free, and one that would represent a nice diversified portfolio. The main advantage is that you are not giving money to the fund manager but rather paying the minimal cost of investing in an index ETF. Overall this can save you an extra .5-1% annually on your portfolio, just in fees. Here are links to commission free ETF trading on Fidelity and TD Ameritrade." }, { "docid": "270992", "title": "", "text": "The main difference between an ETF and a Mutual Fund is Management. An ETF will track a specific index with NO manager input. A Mutual Fund has a manager that is trying to choose securities for its fund based on the mandate of the fund. Liquidity ETFs trade like a stock, so you can buy at 10am and sell at 11 if you wish. Mutual Funds (most) are valued at the end of each business day, so no intraday trading. Also ETFs are similar to stocks in that you need a buyer/seller for the ETF that you want/have. Whereas a mutual fund's units are sold back to itself. I do not know of many if any liquity issues with an ETF, but you could be stuck holding it if you can not find a buyer (usually the market maker). Mutual Funds can be closed to trading, however it is rare. Tax treatment Both come down to the underlying holdings in the fund or ETF. However, more often in Mutual Funds you could be stuck paying someone else's taxes, not true with an ETF. For example, you buy an Equity Mutual Fund 5 years ago, you sell the fund yourself today for little to no gain. I buy the fund a month ago and the fund manager sells a bunch of the stocks they bought for it 10 years ago for a hefty gain. I have a tax liability, you do not even though it is possible that neither of us have any gains in our pocket. It can even go one step further and 6 months from now I could be down money on paper and still have a tax liability. Expenses A Mutual Fund has an MER or Management Expense Ratio, you pay it no matter what. If the fund has a positive return of 12.5% in any given year and it has an MER of 2.5%, then you are up 10%. However if the fund loses 7.5% with the same MER, you are down 10%. An ETF has a much smaller management fee (typically 0.10-0.95%) but you will have trading costs associated with any trades. Risks involved in these as well as any investment are many and likely too long to go into here. However in general, if you have a Canadian Stock ETF it will have similar risks to a Canadian Equity Mutual Fund. I hope this helps." }, { "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": "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": "306232", "title": "", "text": "\"General advice is to keep 6 months worth of income liquid -- in your case, you might want to leave 1 year liquid since, even though your income is stable now, it is not static (i.e., you're not drawing salary from an employer). The rest of it? If you don't plan on using it for any big purchases in the next 5 or so years, invest it. If you don't, you will probably lose money in the long term due to inflation (how's that for a risk? :). There are plenty of options for the risk averse, many of which handily beat inflation, though without knowing your country of residence, it's hard to say. In all likelihood, though, you'll want to invest in index funds -- such as ETFs -- that basically track industries, rather than individual companies. This is basically free portfolio diversity -- they lose money only when an entire sector loses value. Though even with funds of this type, you still want to ensure you purchase multiple different funds that track different industries. Don't just toss all of your funds into an IT index, for example. Before buying, just look at the history of the fund and make sure it has had a general upward trajectory since 2008 (I've bought a few ETFs that remained static...not what we're looking for in an investment!). If the brokerage account you choose doesn't offer commission free trades on any of the funds you want (personally, I use Schwab and their ETF portfolio), try to \"\"buy in bulk.\"\" That way you're not spending so much on trades. There are other considerations (many indexed funds have high management costs, but if you go with ETFs, they don't, and there's the question of dividends, etc), but that is getting into the weeds as far as investing knowledge is concerned. Beyond that, just keep in mind it'll take 1-2 weeks for you to see that money if you need it, and there's obviously no guarantee it'll be there if you do need it for an emergency.\"" }, { "docid": "193805", "title": "", "text": "\"I think that any ETF is \"\"open source\"\" -- the company issues a prospectus and publishes the basket of stocks that make up the index. The stuff that is proprietary are trading strategies and securities or deriviatives that aren't traded on the open market. Swaps, venture funds, hedge funds and other, more \"\"exotic\"\" derivatives are the things that are closed. What do you mean by \"\"open source\"\" in this context?\"" }, { "docid": "273861", "title": "", "text": "You weren't really clear about where you are in the world, what currency you are using and what you want your eventual asset allocation to be. If you're in the US, I'd recommend splitting your international investment between a Global ex-US fund like VEU (as Chris suggested in his comment) and an emerging markets ETF like VWO. If you're not in the US, you need to think about how much you would like to invest in US equities and what approach you would like to take to do so. Also, with international funds, particularly emerging markets, low expense ratios aren't necessarily the best value. Active management may help you to avoid some of the risks associated with investing in foreign companies, particularly in emerging markets. If you still want low expenses at all cost, understand the underlying index that the ETF is pegged to." }, { "docid": "401939", "title": "", "text": "\"It sounds like you need an index fund that follows so called Sustainability index. A sustainability index does not simply select \"\"socially responsible\"\" industries. It attempts to replicate the target market, in terms of countries, industries, and company sizes, but it also aims to select most \"\"sustainable\"\" companies from each category. This document explains how Dow Jones Sustainability World index is constructed (emphasis mine): An example of a fund following such index is iShares Dow Jones Global Sustainability Screened UCITS ETF, which also excludes \"\"sin stocks\"\".\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "314008", "title": "", "text": "\"I'm assuming the question is about how to compare two ETFs that track the same index. I'd look at (for ETFs -- ignoring index funds): So, for example you might compare SPY vs IVV: SPY has about 100x the volume. Sure, IVV has 2M shares trading, so it is liquid \"\"enough\"\". But the bigger volume on SPY might matter to you if you use options: open interest is as much as 1000x more on SPY. Even if you have no interest in options, the spreads on SPY are probably going to be slightly smaller. They both have 0.09% expense ratios. When I looked on 2010-9-6, SPY was trading at a slight discount, IVV was at a slight premium. Looking for any sort of trend is left as an exercise to the reader... Grab the prospectus for each to examine the rules they set for fund makeup. Both come from well-known issuers and have a decent history. (Rather than crazy Uncle Ed's pawn shop, or the Central Bank of Stilumunistan.) So unless you find something in the SPY prospectus that makes you queasy, the higher volume and equal expense ratios would seem to suggest it over IVV. The fact that it is at a (tiny) discount right now is a (tiny) bonus.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "373501", "title": "", "text": "The minimum at Schwab to open an IRA is $1000. Why don't you check the two you listed to see what their minimum opening balance is? If you plan to go with ETFs, you want to ask them what their commission is for a minimum trade. In Is investing in an ETF generally your best option after establishing a Roth IRA? sheegaon points out that for the smaller investor, index mutual funds are cheaper than the ETFs, part due to commission, part the bid/ask spread." }, { "docid": "99568", "title": "", "text": "\"The majority (about 80%) of mutual funds are underperforming their underlying indexes. This is why ETFs have seen massive capital inflows compared to equity funds, which have seen significant withdrawals in the last years. I would definitively recommend going with an ETF. In addition to pure index based ETFs that (almost) track broad market indexes like the S&P 500 there are quite a few more \"\"quant\"\" oriented ETFs that even outperformed the S&P. I am long the S&P trough iShares ETFs and have dividend paying ETFs and some quant ETFS on top (Invesco Powershares) in my portfolio.\"" }, { "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": "387492", "title": "", "text": "\"There are probably 3-4 questions here. Diversification - A good index, a low cost S&P fund or ETF can serve you very well. If you add an extended market index or just go with \"\"Total market\"\", that might be it for your stock allocation. I've seen people with 5 funds, and it didn't take much analysis to see the overlap was so significant, that the extra 4 funds added little, and 2 of the 5 would have been it. If you diversify by buying more ETFs or funds, be sure to see what they contain. If you can go back in time, buy Apple, Google, Amazon, etc, and don't sell them. Individual stocks are fun to pick, but unless you put in your homework, are tough to succeed at. You need to be right at the buy side, and again to know if, and when, to sell. I bought Apple, for example, long ago, pre-last few splits. But, using responsible a approach, I sold a bit each time it doubled. Has I kept it all through the splits, I'd have $1M+ instead of the current $200K or so of stock. Can you tell which companies now have that kind of potential for the future? The S&P has been just about double digit over 60 years. The average managed fund will lag the S&P over time, many will be combined with other funds or just close. Even with huge survivor bias, managed funds can't beat the index over time, on average. Aside from a small portion of stocks I've picked, I'm happy to get S&P less .02% in my 401(k). In aggregate, people actually do far worse due to horrific timing and some odd thing, called emotions.\"" }, { "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": "437875", "title": "", "text": "An index fund is inherently diversified across its index -- no one stock will either make or break the results. In that case it's a matter of picking the index(es) you want to put the money into. ETFs do permit smaller initial purchases, which would let you do a reasonable mix of sectors. (That seems to be the one advantage of ETFs over traditional funds...?)" }, { "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": "518735", "title": "", "text": "There is little difference between buying shares in your broker's index fund and shares of their corresponding ETF. In many cases the money invested in an ETF gets essentially stuffed right into the index fund (I believe Vanguard does this, for example). In either case you will be paying a little bit of tax. In the ETF case it will be on the dividends that are paid out. In the index fund case it will additionally be on the capital gains that have been realized within the fund, which are very few for an index fund. Not a ton in either case. The more important tax consideration is between purchase and sale, which is the same in either case. I'd say stick it wherever the lowest fees are." }, { "docid": "148721", "title": "", "text": "\"Funds which track the same index may have different nominal prices. From an investors point of view, this is not important. What is important is that when the underlying index moves by a given percentage, the price of the tracking funds also move by an equal percentage. In other words, if the S&P500 rises by 5%, then the price of those funds tracking the S&P500 will also rise by 5%. Therefore, investing a given amount in any of the tracking funds will produce the same profit or loss, regardless of the nominal prices at which the individual funds are trading. To see this, use the \"\"compare\"\" function available on the popular online charting services. For example, in Google finance call up a chart of the S&P500 index, then use the compare textbox to enter the codes for the various ETFs tracking the S&P500. You will see that they all track the S&P500 equally so that your relative returns will be equal from each of the tracking funds. Any small difference in total returns will be attributable to management fees and expenses, which is why low fees are so important in passive investing.\"" }, { "docid": "27930", "title": "", "text": "Also, when they mean SP500 fund - it means that fund which invests in the top 500 companies in the SP Index, is my understanding correct? Yes that is right. In reality they may not be able to invest in all 500 companies in same proportion, but is reflective of the composition. I wanted to know whether India also has a company similar to Vanguard which offers low cost index funds. Almost all mutual fund companies offer a NIFTY index fund, both as mutual fund as well as ETF. You can search for index fund and see the total assets to find out which is bigger compared to others." }, { "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": "519963", "title": "", "text": "I don't think it has to be either-or. You can profitably invest inside the SIMPLE. (Though I wouldn't put in any more than the 1% it takes to get the match.) Let's look at some scenarios. These assume salary of $50k/year so the numbers are easy. You can fill in your own numbers to see the outcome, but the percentages will be the same. Let it sit in cash in the SIMPLE. You put in 1%, your employer matches with 1%. Your account balance is $1,000 (at the end of the year), plus a small amount of interest. Cost to you is $500 from your gross pay. 100% return on your contributions, yay! Likely 0-1% real returns going forward; you'll be lucky to keep up with inflation over the long term. Short term not so bad. Buy shares of index ETFs in the SIMPLE; let's assume the fee works out to 10%. You put in 1%, employer matches 1%. Your contributions are $500, fees are $100, your balance is $900 in ETFs. 80% instant return, and possible 6-7% real long term returns going forward. Buy funds in the SIMPLE; assume the load is 5%, management fee is 1% and you can find something that behaves like an index fund (so it is theoretically comparable to above). 1% from you, 1% from employer. Your contributions are $500, load fees are $50, your balance is $950. 90% instant return, and possible 5-6% real long term returns going forward (assuming the 6-7% real returns of equities are reduced by the 1% management fee). (You didn't list out the fees, and they're probably different for the different fund choices, so fill in your own details and do the math.) Invest outside the SIMPLE in the same ETFs or equivalent no load index funds; let's assume you can do this with no fees. You put in the same 1% of your gross (ignoring any difference that might come from paying FICA) into a self directed traditional IRA. At the end of the year the balance is $500. So deciding whether or not to take the match is a no brainer: take it. Deciding whether you should hold cash, ETFs, or (one of two types of) funds in your SIMPLE is a little trickier." }, { "docid": "172703", "title": "", "text": "No, some of Vanguard's funds are index funds like their Total Stock Market Index and 500 Index. In contrast, there are funds like Vanguard PRIMECAP and Vanguard Wellington that are actively managed. There are index funds in both open-end and exchange-traded formats. VTI is the ticker for Vanguard's Total Stock Market ETF while VTSMX is an open-end mutual fund format. VOO would be the S & P 500 ETF ticker while VFINX is one of the open-end mutual fund tickers, where VIIIX has a really low expense ratio but a pretty stiff minimum to my mind. As a general note, open-end mutual funds will generally have a 5 letter ticker ending in X while an ETF will generally be shorter at 3 or 4 letters in length." }, { "docid": "307465", "title": "", "text": "Although you can't invest in an index, you can invest in a fund that basically invests in what the index is made up of. Example: In dealing with an auto index, you could find a fund that buys car companies's stock. The Google Finance list of funds dealing with INDEXDJX:REIT Although not pertaining to your quetion exactly, you may want to consider buying into Vanguard REIT ETF I hope this answers your question." }, { "docid": "580802", "title": "", "text": "You cannot do a 1031 exchange with stocks, bonds, mutual funds, or ETFs. There really isn't much difference between an ETF and its equivalent index mutual fund. Both will have minimal capital gains distributions. I would not recommend selling an index mutual fund and taking a short-term capital gain just to buy the equivalent ETF." }, { "docid": "579901", "title": "", "text": "\"Invest! Because you are young and have lots of time, I recommend opening an investment account and putting most (1000£?) or all in something like an S&P 500 index fund or ETF. Start building your savings now because compound growth over time will build significant wealth. You can still invest the other 500£/mo in something a bit less volatile if you think you'll need the money in < 5 years. If you expect your income to continue to grow and you expect to have extra cash every month for the foreseeable future, I'd just put it all in an index fund. You can weather any temporary market swings, and in the worst-case scenario you can always sell a few shares if you need the cash. The advantage of an index fund is that it has very low fees and it's an \"\"invest-and-forget\"\" approach. You don't have to watch the market every day because your money will simply match the market. And in the long term the market does much better than most managed funds or ETFs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_fund\"" }, { "docid": "328754", "title": "", "text": "\"Switching to only 401k or only SPY? Both bad ideas. Read on. You need multiple savings vehicles. 401k, Roth IRA, emergency fund. You can/should add others for long term savings goals and wealth building. Though you could combine the non-tax-advantaged accounts and keep track of your minimum (representing the emergency fund). SPY is ETF version of SPDR index mutual fund tracking the S&P 500 index. Index funds buy weighted amounts of members of their index by an algorithm to ensure that the total holdings of the fund model the index that they track. They use market capitalization and share prices and other factors to automatically rebalance. Individual investors do not directly affect the composition or makeup of the S&P500, at least not visibly. Technically, very large trades might have a visible effect on the index makeup, but I suspect the size of the trade would be in the billions. An Electronically Traded Fund is sold by the share and represents one equal share of the underlying fund, as divided equally amongst all the shareholders. You put dollars into a fund, you buy shares of an ETF. In the case of an index ETF, it allows you to \"\"buy\"\" a fractional share of the underlying index such as the S&P 500. For SPY, 10 SPY shares represent one S&P basket. Targeted retirement plan funds combine asset allocation into one fund. They are a one stop shop for a diversified allocation. Beware the fees though. Always beware the fees. Fidelity offers a huge assortment of plans. You should look into what is available for you after you decide how you will proceed. More later. SPY is a ETF, think of it as a share of stock. You can go to a bank, broker, or what have you and set up an account and buy shares of it. Then you have x shares of SPY which is the ETF version of SPDR which is an index mutual fund. If the company is matching the first 10% of your income on a 1:1 basis, that would be the best I've heard of in the past two decades, even with the 10 year vesting requirement. If this is them matching 1 dollar in 10 that you contribute to 401k, it may be the worst I've ever heard of, especially with 10 year vesting. Typical is 3-5% match, 3-5 year vesting. Bottom line, that match is free money. And the tax advantage should not be ignored, even if there is no match. Research: I applaud your interest. The investments you make now will have the greatest impact on your retirement. Here's a scenario: If you can figure out how to live on 50% of your take home pay (100k * 0.90 * 0.60 * 0.5 / 12) (salary with first 10% in 401k at roughly 60% after taxes, social security, medicare, etc. halved and divided by 12 for a monthly amount), you'll have 2250 a month to live on. Since you're 28 and single, it's far easier for you to do than someone who is 50 and married with kids. That leaves you with 2250 a month to max out 401k and Roth and invest the rest in wealth building. After four or five years the amount your investments are earning will begin to be noticeable. After ten years or so, they will eclipse your contributions. At that point you could theoretically live of the income. This works with any percentage rate, and the higher your savings rate is, the lower your cost of living amount is, and the faster you'll hit an investment income rate that matches your cost of living amount. At least that's the early retirement concept. The key, as far as I can tell, is living frugally, identifying and negating wasteful spending, and getting the savings rate high without forcing yourself into cheap behavior. Reading financial independence blog posts tells me that once they learn to live frugally, they enjoy it. It's a lot of work, and planning, but if you want to be financially independent, you are definitely in a good position to consider it. Other notes:\"" }, { "docid": "408524", "title": "", "text": "Index Funds & ETFs, if they are tracking the same index, will be the same in an ideal world. The difference would be because of the following factors: Expense ratio: i.e. the expense the funds charge. This varies and hence it would lead to a difference in performance. Tracking error: this means that there is a small percentage of error between the actual index composition and the fund composition. This is due to various reasons. Effectively this would result in the difference between values. Demand / Supply: with ETFs, the fund is traded on stock exchanges like a stock. If the general feeling is that the index is rising, it could lead to an increase in the price of the ETF. Index funds on the other hand would remain the same for the day and are less liquid. This results in a price increase / decrease depending on the market. The above explains the reason for the difference. Regarding which one to buy, one would need to consider other factors like: a) How easy is it to buy ETFs? Do you already hold Demat A/C & access to brokers to help you conduct the transaction or do you need to open an additional account at some cost. b) Normally funds do not need any account, but are you OK with less liquidity as it would take more time to redeem funds." }, { "docid": "370244", "title": "", "text": "Behind the scenes, mutual funds and ETFs are very similar. Both can vary widely in purpose and policies, which is why understanding the prospectus before investing is so important. Since both mutual funds and ETFs cover a wide range of choices, any discussion of management, assets, or expenses when discussing the differences between the two is inaccurate. Mutual funds and ETFs can both be either managed or index-based, high expense or low expense, stock or commodity backed. Method of investing When you invest in a mutual fund, you typically set up an account with the mutual fund company and send your money directly to them. There is often a minimum initial investment required to open your mutual fund account. Mutual funds sometimes, but not always, have a load, which is a fee that you pay either when you put money in or take money out. An ETF is a mutual fund that is traded like a stock. To invest, you need a brokerage account that can buy and sell stocks. When you invest, you pay a transaction fee, just as you would if you purchase a stock. There isn't really a minimum investment required as there is with a traditional mutual fund, but you usually need to purchase whole shares of the ETF. There is inherently no load with ETFs. Tax treatment Mutual funds and ETFs are usually taxed the same. However, capital gain distributions, which are taxable events that occur while you are holding the investment, are more common with mutual funds than they are with ETFs, due to the way that ETFs are structured. (See Fidelity: ETF versus mutual funds: Tax efficiency for more details.) That having been said, in an index fund, capital gain distributions are rare anyway, due to the low turnover of the fund. Conclusion When comparing a mutual fund and ETF with similar objectives and expenses and deciding which to choose, it more often comes down to convenience. If you already have a brokerage account and you are planning on making a one-time investment, an ETF could be more convenient. If, on the other hand, you have more than the minimum initial investment required and you also plan on making additional regular monthly investments, a traditional no-load mutual fund account could be more convenient and less expensive." } ]

[ { "docid": "534418", "title": "", "text": "In general I would recommend to stay away from any video from a successful trader, at least those that claim to share their secrets. If they were that successful, why would they want company? What they have most likely discovered is that they can make more money through videos and seminars than they can through trading. While not a video, GetSmarterAboutMoney has a good basic section on Stock markets without being purely Canada centric (as I see from your profile you are in NY). I know that also in our city, there are continuing education courses that often go over the basics like this, if you have a college nearby they might have something. Cheapest of all would be to hit your local library. The fundamentals don't change that quickly that you need the latest and greatest - those are much more likely to be get-poor-quick schemes. Good Luck" } ]

[ { "docid": "343380", "title": "", "text": "I second this. Wooldridge is very well regarded (and a very nice guy). His grad level book is quite good as well. The other grad level staple is by Greene. Not sure if he has an introductory book. I also recommend [Ben Lambert's YouTube channel](https://www.youtube.com/user/SpartacanUsuals). He has some playlists for a full undergraduate and graduate level econometrics course. I've watched a few videos and he does a wonderful job." }, { "docid": "125568", "title": "", "text": "\"No, there are neither advantages nor disadvantages. I'll take on this question from an accounting standpoint. Financial statements, the tools at which the market determines (amongst other things) the value of a stock, are converted at year end to the home currency (see 1.1.3).If Company A has revenue of 100,000 USD and the conversion to EUR is .89, revenue in the European market will be reported as 89,000 EUR. These valuations, along with ratios, analysis, and \"\"expert\"\" opinions determine if a person should own shares in Company A. Now, if we're talking about comparing markets this is a entirely different question. Example: Should I buy stock of Company A, who is in the American market (as an European)? Should I buy stock of Company B, who is in the European market (as an American)? I would recommend this as additional level of diversification of your portfolio to inlcude possible large inflation of either the currency. The possible gains of this foreign exchange may be greater if one or the other currency becomes weak.\"" }, { "docid": "58877", "title": "", "text": "What is your goal? I would, under most circumstances, not recommend the Masters. I did it because I studied engineering in undergrad but wanted to transition to finance right away. The reality is that a good undergrad will give you most of the tools you need for success in a junior finance role. The critical piece is networking with professionals and working in the markets to elevate your stance before graduation. I am not an advocate for a lot of investment in education as the payback is less than most alternatives (IB analyst training, CFA, internships, etc.)" }, { "docid": "562919", "title": "", "text": "Let's simplify things by assuming you only own 2 stocks. By owning VOO and VTI, you're overweight on large- and mid-cap stocks relative to the market composition. Likewise, by owning VTI and VT, you're overweight on U.S. stocks; conversely, by owning VXUS and VT, you're overweight on non-U.S. stocks. These are all perfectly fine positions to take if that's what you intend and have justification for. For example, if you're in the U.S., it may be a good idea to hold more U.S. stocks than VT because of currency risk. But 4 equity index ETFs is probably overcomplicating things. It is perfectly fine to hold only VTI and VXUS because these funds comprise thousands of stocks and thus give you sufficient diversification. I would recommend holding those 2 ETFs based on a domestic/international allocation that makes sense to you (Vanguard recommends 40% of your stock allocation to be international), and if for some reason you want to be overweight in large- and mid-cap companies, throw in VOO. You can use Morningstar X-Ray to look at your proposed portfolio and find your optimal mix of geographic and stock style allocation." }, { "docid": "94244", "title": "", "text": "\"I mean that is disjointed, are you implying the financial collapse of Hoover and Coolidge was the result of government entitlement programs and that the New Deal was other than that? You've got things reversed, the stock market collapse was financial deregulation and speculation with hands off free market principals you seem to root for. The New Deal and Truman Doctrine expanded entitlements and have avenues for access to education, trade skills, work digging and filling holes, publicly funded infrastructure and technology. Truman in fact wanted a single payer system. \"\"Concrete\"\" economics work, the hand of the free market cannot fill the void left by withdrawal of public funding.\"" }, { "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": "259948", "title": "", "text": "The meaning is quite literal - a representative stock list is a list of stocks that would reasonably be expected to have about the same results as the whole market, i.e. be representative of an investment that invests in all those stocks. Of course, you don't want to invest in all stocks individually, that would be impractical, but you can either choose a diverse array of stocks that are (should be) representative, as the article recommends, or alternatively choose to invest in an index fund which offers a practical way to invest in all the stocks in the index at once." }, { "docid": "186555", "title": "", "text": "I drive 20 miles highway with almost no human intervention, you can take your eyes off the road too. But it is highly not recommended for safety reasons. If you google tesla autopilot there are many videos online to show what I'm talking about." }, { "docid": "563798", "title": "", "text": "\"You got out in time, great, but how did you know when to get back in? The internet is littered with threads by people who got out (in advance, or during), then didn't get back in in time, because the recoveries didn't 'feel real'. Some people are still sitting out, just hoping against hope the market crashes - but it probably won't to those 2009 levels. I recommend looking at [Trinity Study](https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Safe_withdrawal_rates) results as a place to start getting a sense of portfolio longevity when totally out of the market. The reality is that all cash (which is basically a zero-duration bond) is a dangerous position, as is all stocks. A balanced portfolio gives you diversification, the only \"\"free lunch\"\" in investing. Better to not try and time your way in and out of the market, but rather glide within a range (Benjamin Graham recommends no more/less than 75/25, 25/75). If you want to skip the research headaches, stick with a 'total bond' or 'intermediate-term bond' fund (or Google around for 'lazy portfolios'). The real key is not to let emotions drive your decisions - it always 'feels different this time' until it isn't. Much better to set a target portfolio of stocks/bonds (rule of thumb: imagine you might lose half the stock portion in a downturn) then ride it out. That way you don't have to worry about being at one extreme or the other.\"" }, { "docid": "158915", "title": "", "text": "Exactly, the way you phrase the question makes it too vague to explain. Futures are very complicated instruments, and you should not be going after futures contracts if you are not educated in exactly how they work. I recommend getting a text on [derivative markets](http://books.google.com/books?id=6fNJGQAACAAJ&amp;dq=Fundamentals%20of%20Derivative%20Markets%20McDonald&amp;source=gbs_book_other_versions) and learn all the ropes before jumping in at all." }, { "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": "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": "151811", "title": "", "text": "I followed Economics by Michael Parkin for my college level course. It does not involve very complicated mathematics (beyond simple arithmetic and interpreting plots/charts). I found it very enjoyable. Stocks, bonds, and other money market instruments are not covered under this subject usually. They are covered under finance. I normally recommend Hull to people but because you are not interested in mathematics I would recommend Stuart R Veale." }, { "docid": "276778", "title": "", "text": "You have received much good advice, but based on 53 years investing and the first 25 getting my nose bloodied and breaking even I very strongly offer the following. Before doing so let me first offer this caveat: I am not questioning your broker or the advice, but it is only valuable to you if history proves correct. No one, not even Bernanke can predict how stock will perform in the future. Maybe if he sees a depression. My advice to someone new to stock investing is to purchase a index fund from a discount broker, e.g. Fidelity or Vanguard, and then study the market and economics. The Wall Street Journal and the web are my favorites. I started with a hell of a lot less than you have saved, I would not turn $200K over to anyone until you know exactly the risk and cost involved. Also, I wouldn't depend on one person or firm to advise or manage my money. I like to balance one against the other. I do not recall different firms recommending the same stocks. One must remember everyone in the business of recommending stock or any investment is selling something and must be compensated. That's how they earn a living." }, { "docid": "138102", "title": "", "text": "\"I would like to add my accolades in saving $3000, it is an accomplishment that the majority of US households are unable to achieve. source While it is something, in some ways it is hardly anything. Working part time at a entry level job will earn you almost three times this amount per year, and with the same job you can earn about as much in two weeks as this investment is likely to earn, in the market in one year. All this leads to one thing: At your age you should be looking to increase your income. No matter if it is college or a high paying trade, whatever you can do to increase your life time earning potential would be the best investment for this money. I would advocate a more patient approach. Stick the money in the bank until you complete your education enough for an \"\"adult job\"\". Use it, if needed, for training to get that adult job. Get a car, a place of your own, and a sufficient enough wardrobe. Save an emergency fund. Then invest with impunity. Imagine two versions of yourself. One with basic education, a average to below average salary, that uses this money to invest in the stock market. Eventually that money will be needed and it will probably be pulled out of the market at an in opportune time. It might worth less than the original 3K! Now imagine a second version of yourself that has an above average salary due to some good education or training. Perhaps that 3K was used to help provide that education. However, this second version will probably earn 25,000 to 75,000 per year then the first version. Which one do you want to be? Which one do you think will be wealthier? Better educated people not only earn more, they are out of work less. You may want to look at this chart.\"" }, { "docid": "448952", "title": "", "text": "I don't think that the trading volume would impact a broker's ability to find shares to short. You might think that a lot more people are trying to short a stock during regular trading hours than in the pre-market, and that's probably true. But what's also true is that a lot more people are covering their shorts during regular trading hours than in the pre-market. For stocks that have difficulty in finding shares to short, any time someone covers a short is an opportunity for you to enter a short. If you want to short a stock and your broker is rejecting your order because they can't find shares to short, then I would recommend that you continue placing that order throughout the day. You might get lucky and submit one of those orders right after someone else has covered their short and before anyone else can enter a short. I have had success doing this in the past." }, { "docid": "279047", "title": "", "text": "I didn't take too many finance or economics courses so i can't comment. In my post I recommended the YouTube video or audiobook 'why an economy grows and why it doesn't' I guess it's more economy related than finance related, but is still relevant as it touches on loans and net worth and stuff." }, { "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": "522798", "title": "", "text": "There are 2 main types of brokers, full service and online (or discount). Basically the full service can provide you with advice in the form of recommendations on what to buy and sell and when, you call them up when you want to put an order in and the commissions are usually higher. Whilst an online broker usually doesn't provide advice (unless you ask for it at a specified fee), you place your orders online through the brokers website or trading platform and the commissions are usually much lower. The best thing to do when starting off is to go to your country's stock exchange, for example, The ASX in Sydney Australia, and they should have a list of available brokers. Some of the online brokers may have a practice or simulation account you can practice on, and they usually provide good educational material to help you get started. If you went with an online broker and wanted to buy Facebook on the secondary market (that is on the stock exchange after the IPO closes), you would log onto your brokers website or platform and go to the orders section. You would place a new order to buy say 100 Facebook shares at a certain price. You can use a market order, meaning the order will be immediately executed at the current market price and you will own the shares, or a limit price order where you select a price below the current market price and wait for the price to come down and hit your limit price before your order is executed and you get your shares. There are other types of orders available with different brokers which you will learn about when you log onto their website. You also need to be careful that you have the funds available to pay for the share at settlement, which is 3 business days after your order was executed. Some brokers may require you to have the funds deposited into an account which is linked to your trading account with them. To sell your shares you do the same thing, except this time you choose a sell order instead of a buy order. It becomes quite simple once you have done it a couple of times. The best thing is to do some research and get started. Good Luck." } ]

[ { "docid": "585447", "title": "", "text": "Before you go filling your head with useless information as there is way too much stuff out there on the stock market. First ask yourself a few questions: There is going to be a balance between the three... don't kid yourself. After you answer these questions find a trading strategy to get the returns you are looking for. Remember the higher returns you expect... the more time you have to put in. Find a trading strategy you like and that works for you. Ounce you have your strategy then find the stocks or ETF that work for that strategy.... Ignore everything else, it is designed to separate you from your money. Making money in the stock market is easy, don't let the media hype and negative people tell you any different. Find something that works for you and perfect it... stick to it." } ]

[ { "docid": "301866", "title": "", "text": "\"It's possible to make money in the market - even millions if you \"\"play your cards right\"\". Taking the course being offered can be educational but highly unlikely to increase your chances of making millions. Experience and knowledge of the game will make you money. The stock market is a game.\"" }, { "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": "221319", "title": "", "text": "Security Analysis(very difficult for beginners )& Intelligent Investor by Benjamin Graham. All about(book series by McGraw) on Stocks,Derivatives,Options,Futures,Market Timings. Reminiscence of a Stock Operator (Life of jesse Livermore). Memoirs , Popular Delusions and Madness of the Crowds by Charles Mackay. Basics of Technical analysis includig Trading Strategies via Youtube videos & Google. Also opt for Seeking alpha free version to learn about portfolio allocation under current scenario there will be few articles as it will ask for premium version if you love it then opt for it. But still these books will do." }, { "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": "151811", "title": "", "text": "I followed Economics by Michael Parkin for my college level course. It does not involve very complicated mathematics (beyond simple arithmetic and interpreting plots/charts). I found it very enjoyable. Stocks, bonds, and other money market instruments are not covered under this subject usually. They are covered under finance. I normally recommend Hull to people but because you are not interested in mathematics I would recommend Stuart R Veale." }, { "docid": "17604", "title": "", "text": "Forecasting prices to the level of accuracy they purport is a fool's errand. Sell side analysts are there to get you to buy something, not to make you money. If they truly believed their analysis was significantly better than anyone else's in the market, they would trade on their own analysis. No one ever got rich by following analyst recommendations. Don't believe me? Track the buy/sell recommendations in a spreadsheet for 50+ stocks. I would be shocked if you significantly outperformed the market." }, { "docid": "131381", "title": "", "text": "\"Out of your seven recommendations one is up 14%, one up 6%, four are either even or down slightly and one is down a whopping 40%. This reminds me of a recommendation earlier in the year provided by The Motley Fool to buy XRO.AX when it was around the $40 mark. I had a quick look at it and thought \"\"gee there is no way I am buying those shares\"\". Now they are just below $15. See the chart below: You have just learnt a valuable lesson by testing these recommendations without your real money - never trust investment recommendations from analysts (or anyone else). Get yourself educated so you understand what analysts are talking about and you can make a decision for yourself. Better still learn about technical analysis so you can decide for yourself whether it is the right time to buy or sell.\"" }, { "docid": "110733", "title": "", "text": "\"You should spend zero on your stock research company. If the management of the company actually had persistent skill in picking stocks, they would not be peddling their knowledge to the retail market for a few hundred dollars. They would rake in millions and billions by running a huge hedge fund and buy themselves a private island or something. Unfortunately for them, hedge fund investors are not as gullible as retail investors and are more likely to sue when they discover they have been lied to. Many stock \"\"research\"\" companies are trying to manipulate you into paying too high a price for stocks. They buy a small stock, recommend it, and then sell it at the artificially (and temporarily) high price. Others are simply recommending stocks pretty much at random. You could do that just as well as they can, and for free. Portfolio performance evaluation is a complex problem. The research company knows that its recommendations will \"\"make good money\"\" about half the time and that's enough to bring in a lot of uninformed people. To know whether your portfolio actually did well you need to know how much risk there was in the portfolio and how a competing \"\"dumb\"\" portfolio with similar characteristics fared over the same time period. And you need to repeat the experiment enough times (or long enough) to know the outcome wasn't luck. I can say confidently that your portfolio performance doesn't back up the claim that the research company has skill above and beyond luck. Much less $599 worth of skill. I can also say very confidently that there are no investors with a total of 20 thousand dollars to invest for whom purchasing stock recommendations is worth the cost, even if those recommendations do have some value. Real stock information is valuable only to large investors because the per-dollar value is low. Please do not give money to or otherwise support a semi-criminal \"\"stock research\"\" enterprise.\"" }, { "docid": "592598", "title": "", "text": "&gt;Labor isn't that interchangeable and markets are far from perfect. Yes, it is if it's manual labor which is what these Walmart workers is. Labor can even be replaced by robots/technologies. As technologies advanced at current rate. Manual labors can and will cease to exist. &gt;What is the other option other than government help? Education! Seriously, a god damn good education that isn't today's education system. No welfare from the govrt. A good education from our govrt. is 100x better than welfare. &gt;Let these people starve and live on the street because they can't afford anything else? That is a great way to ruin a society. Look, No one cried when Car replaced Horse carriage. Just look at the entire Human history. A lot of job die when technology changed and each time a new technology rise. There are dozen of far better paying jobs that come with it. Can you imagine back in 1950 that someone can just do Vlog on YoutTube and make great living doing it. There are hundred of YouTube partners making a good living just making videos and post them on YouTube! Unless you're retarded, your brain will always worth way more than your strength. Human race is a creative race. We are born to think and to create. I believe our society and its people will be better off in a society where we are not bored at our jobs doing manual and repetitive tasks. From personal experiences, I got a co-worker who used to building house for a living. When we work together, he was a tech support and now he does SharePoint support. He told me when he was building house, he was hook on drug/weed/cocaine...etc. You named it and he had tried it beaus the pain from doing manual labors was unbearable that he rely on drugs to take pain away. He told me not one person who work in the house building wasn't hook on alcohol, weed or drug and working in tech support and writing script is great for him because he get to use his brain and no body pain from manual labor. All this have to start with EDUCATION! Which sadly our govrt. suck balls at it!" }, { "docid": "125568", "title": "", "text": "\"No, there are neither advantages nor disadvantages. I'll take on this question from an accounting standpoint. Financial statements, the tools at which the market determines (amongst other things) the value of a stock, are converted at year end to the home currency (see 1.1.3).If Company A has revenue of 100,000 USD and the conversion to EUR is .89, revenue in the European market will be reported as 89,000 EUR. These valuations, along with ratios, analysis, and \"\"expert\"\" opinions determine if a person should own shares in Company A. Now, if we're talking about comparing markets this is a entirely different question. Example: Should I buy stock of Company A, who is in the American market (as an European)? Should I buy stock of Company B, who is in the European market (as an American)? I would recommend this as additional level of diversification of your portfolio to inlcude possible large inflation of either the currency. The possible gains of this foreign exchange may be greater if one or the other currency becomes weak.\"" }, { "docid": "186555", "title": "", "text": "I drive 20 miles highway with almost no human intervention, you can take your eyes off the road too. But it is highly not recommended for safety reasons. If you google tesla autopilot there are many videos online to show what I'm talking about." }, { "docid": "580370", "title": "", "text": "Business analytics is a huge umbrella term, but if you're interested in the web analytics part of it, I'd highly recommend google analytics' tutorials. The videos are very well done and they'll give you a dummy account to practice with." }, { "docid": "549188", "title": "", "text": "\"If you read Joel Greenblatt's The Little Book That Beats the Market, he says: Owning two stocks eliminates 46% of the non market risk of owning just one stock. This risk is reduced by 72% with 4 stocks, by 81% with 8 stocks, by 93% with 16 stocks, by 96% with 32 stocks, and by 99% with 500 stocks. Conclusion: After purchasing 6-8 stocks, benefits of adding stocks to decrease risk are small. Overall market risk won't be eliminated merely by adding more stocks. And that's just specific stocks. So you're very right that allocating a 1% share to a specific type of fund is not going to offset your other funds by much. You are correct that you can emulate the lifecycle fund by simply buying all the underlying funds, but there are two caveats: Generally, these funds are supposed to be cheaper than buying the separate funds individually. Check over your math and make sure everything is in order. Call the fund manager and tell him about your findings and see what they have to say. If you are going to emulate the lifecycle fund, be sure to stay on top of rebalancing. One advantage of buying the actual fund is that the portfolio distributions are managed for you, so if you're going to buy separate ETFs, make sure you're rebalancing. As for whether you need all those funds, my answer is a definite no. Consider Mark Cuban's blog post Wall Street's new lie to Main Street - Asset Allocation. Although there are some highly questionable points in the article, one portion is indisputably clear: Let me translate this all for you. “I want you to invest 5pct in cash and the rest in 10 different funds about which you know absolutely nothing. I want you to make this investment knowing that even if there were 128 hours in a day and you had a year long vacation, you could not possibly begin to understand all of these products. In fact, I don’t understand them either, but because I know it sounds good and everyone is making the same kind of recommendations, we all can pretend we are smart and going to make a lot of money. Until we don’t\"\" Standard theory says that you want to invest in low-cost funds (like those provided by Vanguard), and you want to have enough variety to protect against risk. Although I can't give a specific allocation recommendation because I don't know your personal circumstances, you should ideally have some in US Equities, US Fixed Income, International Equities, Commodities, of varying sizes to have adequate diversification \"\"as defined by theory.\"\" You can either do your own research to establish a distribution, or speak to an investment advisor to get help on what your target allocation should be.\"" }, { "docid": "68773", "title": "", "text": "\"You have many alternatives to the funds you mentioned. It is actually very unusual for ETFs to have such high denominations. Possible alternative: iShares IVV What would you recommend I do with $1000? A diversified index fund is a great equity investment for the long run but might be considered \"\"boring\"\" by newcomers who think of equity markets as something more exciting. Maybe add a share or two, small ones, just to show the differences to the fund. This wouldn't be called wise investing but it certainly would have an educational effect. Except if this money is all you saved for your daughter, then don't gamble any of it.\"" }, { "docid": "516330", "title": "", "text": "\"That sounds like a marketing process that might work although it would be much easier and will most likely have a better impact if you made a cool video showing it glowing in the dark at a rave/party/nightclub and had a women's voice over it saying little jabs of info and branding it as \"\"the party drink\"\" or some other brand that you want to turn it into. Then take that video and put it on FB and do some paid marketing with FB's AI system so it can find your target market and then once you do find who buys it, market the shit out of it. After you prove that people want it, maybe find a distributor since you will then have provable sales and let the distributor sell it to every gas station and quicky mart known to man and just keep up with the marketing and branding and then boom you are a millionaire!!! Well, maybe. haha\"" }, { "docid": "206118", "title": "", "text": "Most of the “recommendations” are just total market allocations. Within domestic stocks, the performance rotates. Sometimes large cap outperform, sometimes small cap outperform. You can see the chart here (examine year by year): https://www.google.com/finance?chdnp=1&chdd=1&chds=1&chdv=1&chvs=maximized&chdeh=0&chfdeh=0&chdet=1428692400000&chddm=99646&chls=IntervalBasedLine&cmpto=NYSEARCA:VO;NYSEARCA:VB&cmptdms=0;0&q=NYSEARCA:VV&ntsp=0&ei=_sIqVbHYB4HDrgGA-oGoDA Conventional wisdom is to buy the entire market. If large cap currently make up 80% of the market, you would allocate 80% of domestic stocks to large cap. Same case with International Stocks (Developed). If Japan and UK make up the largest market internationally, then so be it. Similar case with domestic bonds, it is usually total bond market allocation in the beginning. Then there is the question of when you want to withdraw the money. If you are withdrawing in a couple years, you do not want to expose too much to currency risks, thus you would allocate less to international markets. If you are investing for retirement, you will get the total world market. Then there is the question of risk tolerance. Bonds are somewhat negatively correlated with Stocks. When stock dips by 5% in a month, bonds might go up by 2%. Under normal circumstances they both go upward. Bond/Stock allocation ratio is by age I’m sure you knew that already. Then there is the case of Modern portfolio theory. There will be slight adjustments to the ETF weights if it is found that adjusting them would give a smaller portfolio variance, while sacrificing small gains. You can try it yourself using Excel solver. There is a strategy called Sector Rotation. Google it and you will find examples of overweighting the winners periodically. It is difficult to time the rotation, but Healthcare has somehow consistently outperformed. Nonetheless, those “recommendations” you mentioned are likely to be market allocations again. The “Robo-advisors” list out every asset allocation in detail to make you feel overwhelmed and resort to using their service. In extreme cases, they can even break down the holdings to 2/3/4 digit Standard Industrial Classification codes, or break down the bond duration etc. Some “Robo-advisors” would suggest you as many ETF as possible to increase trade commissions (if it isn’t commission free). For example, suggesting you to buy VB, VO, VV instead a VTI." }, { "docid": "549072", "title": "", "text": "Many would recommend lump sum investing because of the interest gains, and general upward historical trend of the market. After introducing DCA in A Random Walk Down Wall Street, Malkiel says the following: But remember, because there is a long-term uptrend in common-stock prices, this technique is not necessarily appropriate if you need to invest a lump sum such as a bequest. If possible, keep a small reserve (in a money fund) to take advantage of market declines and buy a few extra shares if the market is down sharply. I’m not suggesting for a minute that you try to forecast the market. However, it’s usually a good time to buy after the market has fallen out of bed. Just as hope and greed can sometimes feed on themselves to produce speculative bubbles, so do pessimism and despair react to produce market panics. - A Random Walk Down Wall Street, Burton G. Malkiel He goes on from there to recommend a rebalancing strategy." }, { "docid": "448952", "title": "", "text": "I don't think that the trading volume would impact a broker's ability to find shares to short. You might think that a lot more people are trying to short a stock during regular trading hours than in the pre-market, and that's probably true. But what's also true is that a lot more people are covering their shorts during regular trading hours than in the pre-market. For stocks that have difficulty in finding shares to short, any time someone covers a short is an opportunity for you to enter a short. If you want to short a stock and your broker is rejecting your order because they can't find shares to short, then I would recommend that you continue placing that order throughout the day. You might get lucky and submit one of those orders right after someone else has covered their short and before anyone else can enter a short. I have had success doing this in the past." }, { "docid": "58877", "title": "", "text": "What is your goal? I would, under most circumstances, not recommend the Masters. I did it because I studied engineering in undergrad but wanted to transition to finance right away. The reality is that a good undergrad will give you most of the tools you need for success in a junior finance role. The critical piece is networking with professionals and working in the markets to elevate your stance before graduation. I am not an advocate for a lot of investment in education as the payback is less than most alternatives (IB analyst training, CFA, internships, etc.)" } ]

[ { "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": "408524", "title": "", "text": "Index Funds & ETFs, if they are tracking the same index, will be the same in an ideal world. The difference would be because of the following factors: Expense ratio: i.e. the expense the funds charge. This varies and hence it would lead to a difference in performance. Tracking error: this means that there is a small percentage of error between the actual index composition and the fund composition. This is due to various reasons. Effectively this would result in the difference between values. Demand / Supply: with ETFs, the fund is traded on stock exchanges like a stock. If the general feeling is that the index is rising, it could lead to an increase in the price of the ETF. Index funds on the other hand would remain the same for the day and are less liquid. This results in a price increase / decrease depending on the market. The above explains the reason for the difference. Regarding which one to buy, one would need to consider other factors like: a) How easy is it to buy ETFs? Do you already hold Demat A/C & access to brokers to help you conduct the transaction or do you need to open an additional account at some cost. b) Normally funds do not need any account, but are you OK with less liquidity as it would take more time to redeem funds." }, { "docid": "387277", "title": "", "text": "ETFs are just like any other mutual fund; they hold a mix of assets described by their prospectus. If that mix fits your needs for diversification and the costs of buying/selling/holding are low, it's as worth considering as a traditional fund with the same mix. A bond fund will hold a mixture of bonds. Whether that mix is sufficiently diversified for you, or whether you want a different fund or a mix of funds, is a judgement call. I want my money to take care of itself for the most part, so most of the bond portion is in a low-fee Total Bond Market Index fund (which tries to match the performance of bonds in general). That could as easily be an ETF, but happens not to be." }, { "docid": "241661", "title": "", "text": "\"When you hold units of the DLR/DLR.U (TSX) ETF, you are indirectly holding U.S. dollars cash or cash equivalents. The ETF can be thought of as a container. The container gives you the convenience of holding USD in, say, CAD-denominated accounts that don't normally provide for USD cash balances. The ETF price ($12.33 and $12.12, in your example) simply reflects the CAD price of those USD, and the change is because the currencies moved with respect to each other. And so, necessarily, given how the ETF is made up, when the value of the U.S. dollar declines vs. the Canadian dollar, it follows that the value of your units of DLR declines as quoted in Canadian dollar terms. Currencies move all the time. Similarly, if you held the same amount of value in U.S. dollars, directly, instead of using the ETF, you would still experience a loss when quoted in Canadian dollar terms. In other words, whether or not your U.S. dollars are tied up either in DLR/DLR.U or else sitting in a U.S. dollar cash balance in your brokerage account, there's not much of a difference: You \"\"lose\"\" Canadian dollar equivalent when the value of USD declines with respect to CAD. Selling, more quickly, your DLR.U units in a USD-denominated account to yield U.S. dollars that you then directly hold does not insulate you from the same currency risk. What it does is reduce your exposure to other cost/risk factors inherent with ETFs: liquidity, spreads, and fees. However, I doubt that any of those played a significant part in the change of value from $12.33 to $12.12 that you described.\"" }, { "docid": "511602", "title": "", "text": "The Zeolite Import Data can be collected from the agencies that are available online or by hiring an expert that hold expertise in this profession. Seair Exim Solution provides comprises HS code, Product Description, Bill of Loading Quantity, Country Name, and Port Name etc." }, { "docid": "391515", "title": "", "text": "\"Note that the series you are showing is the historical spot index (what you would pay to be long the index today), not the history of the futures quotes. It's like looking at the current price of a stock or commodity (like oil) versus the futures price. The prompt futures quote will be different that the spot quote. If you graphed the history of the prompt future you might notice the discontinuity more. How do you determine when to roll from one contract to the other? Many data providers will give you a time series for the \"\"prompt\"\" contract history, which will automatically roll to the next expiring contract for you. Some even provide 2nd prompt, etc. time series. If that is not available, you'd have to query multiple futures contracts and interleave them based on the expiry rules, which should be publicly available. Also is there not a price difference from the contract which is expiring and the one that is being rolled forward to? Yes, since the time to delivery is extended by ~30 days when you roll to the next contract. but yet there are no sudden price discontinuities in the charts. Well, there are, but it could be indistinguishable from the normal volatility of the time series.\"" }, { "docid": "307083", "title": "", "text": "\"The simplest answer to why you can't see it in your online statement is a design/business decision that was made, most probably originally to make online statements differ as little as possible from old fashioned monthly printed statements; the old printed statements never showed holds either. Some banks and card services actually do show these transactions online, but in my experience these are the rare exceptions - though with business/commercial accounts I saw this more, but it was still rare. This is also partly due to banks fearing lots of annoying phone calls from customers and problems with merchants, as people react to \"\"hey, renting that car didn't cost $500!\"\" and don't realize that the hold is often higher than the transaction amount and will be justified in a few days (or weeks...), etc - so please don't dispute the charges just yet. Behind the scenes, I've had bankers explain it to me thusly (the practice has bitten me before and it bothered me a lot, so I've talked to quite a few bankers about this): There are two kinds of holds: \"\"soft holds\"\" and \"\"hard holds\"\". In a soft hold, a merchant basically asks the bank, \"\"Hey, is there at least $75 in this account?\"\" The bank responds, and then has it's own individually set policy per account type as to how to treat that hold. Sometimes they reserve no money whatsoever - you are free to spend that money right out and rack up NSF fees to your heart's content. Yet some policies are to treat this identically to a hard hold and keep the money locked down until released. The hard hold is treated very much like an actual expenditure transaction, in that the money is locked and shown as no longer available to you. This varies by bank - some banks use an \"\"Account Balance\"\" and an \"\"Available Balance\"\", and some have done away with these dual terms and leave it up to you to determine what your balance is and what's \"\"available\"\" (or you have to call them). The key difference in the hard hold and a real expenditure is, technically, the money is still in your bank account; your bank has merely \"\"reserved\"\" it, earmarking it for a specific purchase (and gently promising the merchant they can have their money later), but the biggest difference is there is a time-limit. If a merchant does not process a completion to the transaction to claim the money, your bank will lift the hold after a period of time (I've seen 7-30 days as typical in the US, again varying by institution) returning your money to your balance that is available for purchasing and withdrawal. In every case, any vaguely decent banking institution allows you to call them, speak to some bank employee, and they can look up your account and inform you about the different sort of holds that are on your account that are not pending/completed purchase transactions. From a strictly cynical (perhaps rightly jaded) point of view, yes this is also used as a method to extort absurdly high fees especially from customers who keep a low balance in their account. I have had more than one bank charge NSF fees based on available balances that were due to holds made by gas pumps, for instance, even though my actual \"\"money in my account\"\" never went below $0 (the holds were for amounts larger than the actual transaction). And yes, the banks usually would waive those fees if you bothered to get someone on the phone or in person and made yourself a nuisance to the right person for long enough, but they made you work for it. But I digress.... The reality is that there are lots of back and forth and middle-men in transactions like this, and most banks try to hide as much of this from you the client as possible, partly because its a huge confusing hassle and its part of why you are paying a bank to handle this nonsense for you to start with. And, as with all institutions, rules and policies become easily adjusted to maximize revenues, and if you don't keep sizable liquid minimum balances (100% of the time, all year long) they target you for fees. To avoid this without having fat wads of extra cash in those accounts, is use an entirely disconnected credit card for reservations ONLY - especially when you are traveling and will be making rentals and booking hotels. Just tell them you wish to pay with a different card when you are done, and most merchants can do this without hassle. Since it's a credit card with monthly billing you can often end up with no balance, no waiting around for a month for payments to clear, and no bank fees! It isn't 100%, but now I never - if I can possibly avoid it - use my debit/bank card to \"\"reserve\"\" or \"\"rent\"\" anything, ever.\"" }, { "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": "499154", "title": "", "text": "\"The offering price is what the company will raise by selling the shares at that price. However, this isn't usually what the general public sees as often there will be shows to drive up demand so that there will be buyers for the stock. That demand is what you see on the first day when the general public can start buying the stock. If one is an employee, relative or friend of someone that is offered, \"\"Friends and Family\"\" shares they may be able to buy at the offering price. Pricing of IPO from Wikipedia states around the idea of pricing: A company planning an IPO typically appoints a lead manager, known as a bookrunner, to help it arrive at an appropriate price at which the shares should be issued. There are two primary ways in which the price of an IPO can be determined. Either the company, with the help of its lead managers, fixes a price (\"\"fixed price method\"\"), or the price can be determined through analysis of confidential investor demand data compiled by the bookrunner (\"\"book building\"\"). Historically, some IPOs both globally and in the United States have been underpriced. The effect of \"\"initial underpricing\"\" an IPO is to generate additional interest in the stock when it first becomes publicly traded. Flipping, or quickly selling shares for a profit, can lead to significant gains for investors who have been allocated shares of the IPO at the offering price. However, underpricing an IPO results in lost potential capital for the issuer. One extreme example is theglobe.com IPO which helped fuel the IPO \"\"mania\"\" of the late 90's internet era. Underwritten by Bear Stearns on November 13, 1998, the IPO was priced at $9 per share. The share price quickly increased 1000% after the opening of trading, to a high of $97. Selling pressure from institutional flipping eventually drove the stock back down, and it closed the day at $63. Although the company did raise about $30 million from the offering it is estimated that with the level of demand for the offering and the volume of trading that took place the company might have left upwards of $200 million on the table. The danger of overpricing is also an important consideration. If a stock is offered to the public at a higher price than the market will pay, the underwriters may have trouble meeting their commitments to sell shares. Even if they sell all of the issued shares, the stock may fall in value on the first day of trading. If so, the stock may lose its marketability and hence even more of its value. This could result in losses for investors, many of whom being the most favored clients of the underwriters. Perhaps the best known example of this is the Facebook IPO in 2012. Underwriters, therefore, take many factors into consideration when pricing an IPO, and attempt to reach an offering price that is low enough to stimulate interest in the stock, but high enough to raise an adequate amount of capital for the company. The process of determining an optimal price usually involves the underwriters (\"\"syndicate\"\") arranging share purchase commitments from leading institutional investors. Some researchers (e.g. Geoffrey C., and C. Swift, 2009) believe that the underpricing of IPOs is less a deliberate act on the part of issuers and/or underwriters, than the result of an over-reaction on the part of investors (Friesen & Swift, 2009). One potential method for determining underpricing is through the use of IPO Underpricing Algorithms. This may be useful for seeing the difference in that \"\"theglobe.com\"\" example where the offering price is $9/share yet the stock traded much higher than that initially.\"" }, { "docid": "359201", "title": "", "text": "\"First, it's an exaggeration to say \"\"every\"\" dollar. Traditional mutual funds, including money-market funds, keep a small fraction of their assets in cash for day-to-day transactions, maybe 1%. If you invest $1, they put that in the cash bucket and issue you a share. If you and 999 other people invest $100 each, not offset by people redeeming, they take the aggregated $100,000 and buy a bond or two. Conversely, if you redeem one share it comes out of cash, but if lots of people redeem they sell some bond(s) to cover those redemptions -- which works as long as the bond(s) can in fact be sold for close enough to their recorded value. And this doesn't mean they \"\"can't fail\"\". Even though they are (almost totally) invested in securities that are thought to be among the safest and most liquid available, in sufficiently extreme circumstances those investments can fall in market value, or they can become illiquid and unavailable to cover \"\"withdrawals\"\" (redemptions). ETFs are also fully invested, but the process is less direct. You don't just send money to the fund company. Instead: Thus as long as the underlyings for your ETF hold their value, which for a money market they are designed to, and the markets are open and the market maker firms are operating, your ETF shares are well backed. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exchange-traded_fund for more.\"" }, { "docid": "161201", "title": "", "text": "Your assumption that funds sold in GBP trade in GBP is incorrect. In general funds purchase their constituent stocks in the fund currency which may be different to the subscription currency. Where the subscription currency is different from the fund currency subscriptions are converted into the fund currency before the extra money is used to increase holdings. An ETF, on the other hand, does not take subscriptions directly but by creation (and redemption) of shares. The principle is the same however; monies received from creation of ETF shares are converted into the fund currency and then used to buy stock. This ensures that only one currency transaction is done. In your specific example the fund currency will be USD so your purchase of the shares (assuming there are no sellers and creation occurs) will be converted from GBP to USD and held in that currency in the fund. The fund then trades entirely in USD to avoid currency risk. When you want to sell your exposure (supposing redemption occurs) enough holdings required to redeem your money are sold to get cash in USD and then converted to GBP before paying you. This means that trading activity where there is no need to convert to GBP (or any other currency) does not incur currency conversion costs. In practice funds will always have some cash (or cash equivalents) on hand to pay out redemptions and will have an idea of the number and size of redemptions each calendar period so will use futures and swaps to mitigate FX risk. Where the same firm has two funds traded in different currencies with the same objectives it is likely that one is a wrapper for the other such that one simply converts the currency and buys the other currency denominated ETF. As these are exchange traded funds with a price in GBP the amount you pay for the ETF or gain on selling it is the price given and you will not have to consider currency exchange as that should be done internally as explained above. However, there can be a (temporary) arbitrage opportunity if the price in GBP does not reflect the price in USD and the exchange rate put together." }, { "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": "511559", "title": "", "text": "\"While nothing is guaranteed - any stock market or country could collapse tomorrow - if you have a fairly long window (15+ years is certainly long), ETFs are likely to earn you well above inflation. Looking at long term ETFs, you typically see close to 10% annual growth over almost any ten year period in the US, and while I don't know European indexes, they're probably well above inflation at least. The downside of ETFs is that your money is somewhat less liquid than in a savings account, and any given year you might not earn anything - you easily could lose money in a particular year. As such, you shouldn't have money in ETFs that you expect to use in the next few months or year or even a few years, perhaps. But as long as you're willing to play the long game - ie, invest in ETF, don't touch it for 15 years except to reinvest the dividends - as long as you go with someone like Vanguard, and use a very low expense ratio fund (mine are 0.06% and 0.10%, I believe), you are likely in the long term to come out ahead. You can diversify your holdings - hold 10% to 20% in bond funds, for example - if you're concerned about risk; look at how some of the \"\"Target\"\" retirement funds allocate their investments to see how diversification can work [Target retirement funds assume high risk tolerance far out and then as the age grows the risk tolerance drops; don't invest in them, but it can be a good example of how to do it.] All of this does require a tolerance of risk, though, and you have to be able to not touch your funds even if they go down - studies have repeatedly shown that trying to time the market is a net loss for most people, and the best thing you can do when your (diverse) investments go down is stay neutral (talking about large funds here and not individual stocks). I think this answers 3 and 4. For 1, share price AND quantity matter (assuming no splits). This depends somewhat on the fund; but at minimum, funds must dividend to you what they receive as dividends. There are Dividend focused ETFs, which are an interesting topic in themselves; but a regular ETF doesn't usually have all that large of dividends. For more information, investopedia has an article on the subject. Note that there are also capital gains distributions, which are typically distributed to help offset capital gains taxes that may occur from time to time with an ETF. Those aren't really returns - you may have to hand most or all over to the IRS - so don't consider distributions the same way. The share price tracks the total net asset value of the fund divided by the number of shares (roughly, assuming no supply/demand split). This should go up as the stocks the ETF owns go up; overall, this is (for non-dividend ETFs) more often the larger volatility both up and down. For Vanguard's S&P500 ETF which you can see here, there were about $3.50 in dividends over 2014, which works out to about a 2% return ($185-$190 share price). On the other hand, the share price went from around $168 at the beginning of 2014 to $190 at the end of 2014, for a return of 13%. That was during a 'good' year for the market, of course; there will be years where you get 2-3% in dividends and lose money; in 2011 it opened at 116 and closed the year at 115 (I don't have the dividend for that year; certainly lower than 3.5% I'd think, but likely nonzero.) The one caveat here is that you do have stock splits, where they cut the price (say) in half and give you double the shares. That of course is revenue neutral - you have the same value the day after the split as before, net of market movements. All of this is good from a tax point of view, by the way; changes in price don't hit you until you sell the stock/fund (unless the fund has some capital gains), while dividends and distributions do. ETFs are seen as 'tax-friendly' for this reason. For 2, Vanguard is pretty good about this (in the US); I wouldn't necessarily invest monthly, but quarterly shouldn't be a problem. Just pay attention to the fees and figure out what the optimal frequency is (ie, assuming 10% return, what is your break even point). You would want to have some liquid assets anyway, so allow that liquid amount to rise over the quarter, then invest what you don't immediately see a need to use. You can see here Vanguard in the US has no fees for buying shares, but has a minimum of one share; so if you're buying their S&P500 (VOO), you'd need to wait until you had $200 or so to invest in order to invest additional funds.\"" }, { "docid": "566069", "title": "", "text": "The simplest way is to invest in a few ETFs, depending on your tolerance for risk; assuming you're very short-term risk tolerant you can invest almost all in a stock ETF like VOO or VTI. Stock market ETFs return close to 10% (unadjusted) over long periods of time, which will out-earn almost any other option and are very easy for a non-finance person to invest in (You don't trade actively - you leave the money there for years). If you want to hedge some of your risk, you can also invest in Bond funds, which tend to move up in stock market downturns - but if you're looking for the long term, you don't need to put much there. Otherwise, try to make sure you take advantage of tax breaks when you can - IRAs, 401Ks, etc.; most of those will have ETFs (whether Vanguard or similar) available to invest in. Look for funds that have low expense ratios and are fairly diversified (ie, don't just invest in one small sector of the economy); as long as the economy continues to grow, the ETFs will grow." }, { "docid": "553896", "title": "", "text": "Some brokers have a number of shares they can offer their customers, but the small guy will get 100, not as many as they'd like. In the Tech bubble of the late 90's I was able to buy in to many IPOs, but the written deal from the broker is that you could not sell for 30 days or you'd be restricted from IPO purchases for the next 90. No matter what the stock opened at, there were a fair number of stocks thay were below IPO issue price after 30 days had passed. I haven't started looking at IPOs since the tech flameout, but had I gotten in to LinkedIn it would have been at that $45 price. Let's see if it stays at these levels after 30 days. Edit - This is the exact cut/paste from my broker's site : Selling IPO Shares: While XXX customers are always free to sell shares purchased in a public offering at any time, short holding periods of less than 31 calendar days will be a factor in determining whether XXX allocates you shares in future public offerings. Accordingly, if you sell IPO shares purchased in a public offering within 30 calendar days of such purchase, you will be restricted from participating in initial and secondary public offerings through XXX for a period of 3 months. (I deleted the broker name) I honestly don't know if I'd have gotten any LI shares. Next interesting one is Pandora." }, { "docid": "593962", "title": "", "text": "In my opinion, the fee is criminal. There are ETFs available to the public that have expenses as low as .05%. The index fund VIIIX an institution level fund available to large 401(k) plans charges .02%. I'll pay a total of under 1% over the next 50 years, Consider that at retirement, the safe withdrawal rate has been thought to be 4%, and today this is considered risky, perhaps too high. Do you think it's fair, in any sense of the word to lose 30% of that withdrawal? Another angle for you - In my working years, I spent most of those years at either the 25% or 28% federal bracket taxable income. I should spend my retirement at 15% marginal rate. On average, the purpose of my 401(k) was to save me (and my wife) 10-13% in tax from deposit to withdrawal. How long does it take for an annual 1.1% excess fee to negate that 10% savings? If one spends their working life paying that rate, they will lose half their wealth to those managing their money. PBS aired a show in its Frontline series titled The Retirement Gamble, it offers a sobering look at how such fees are a killer to your wealth." }, { "docid": "220828", "title": "", "text": "\"standard NFC-for-payments ... reads a straight copy of the card details ... does not generate any one-time-use card number ... does not employ any over-the-air encryption or even a challenge-response system [?] The normal contactless payment process does involve transaction-specific cryptographic-signatures. However what process is used depends on the vendor equipment and the scheme (Visa, Mastercard, Amex, ...) A \"\"Magstripe mode\"\", if supported, allows the card number and expiry date to be read. There is a good description at Level2Kernel which covers \"\"Magnetic Stripe Mode\"\" and \"\"EMV Mode\"\" etc for each scheme (Mastercard, Visa etc do things differently). MasterCard Contactless MasterCard transactions can be performed in either EMV mode or Mag-Stripe mode. After Entry Point has initiated a transaction the MasterCard Kernel issues a Get Processing Options command. In the response from the card a data object called the Application Interchange Profile (AIP) determines whether the transaction will continue in either EMV Mode or Mag-Stripe Mode. The AIP also determines if “On-device cardholder verification” (CDCVM) is supported. EMV Mode (M/Chip) The commands exchanged with the card for EMV Mode closely resemble those used for an EMV contact transaction, with Read Record commands being used to retrieve all the card data, followed by a Generate Application Cryptogram (GENAC) request to obtain a unique, transaction-specific, cryptogram from the card. Once all of these exchanges have been completed, the card can be removed from the RF field. However, unlike for contact transactions, not all the transaction processing occurs before the card exchanges have been completed. This is to optimise the contactless transaction performance by reducing the amount of time the card is required to remain in the RF field. (my emphasis) According to VISA UK Our technology uses the chip on your card to generate unique cryptograms (that’s techie speak for a type of puzzle that consists of a short piece of encrypted or encoded text) and digital signatures to protect your payments. Digital signatures are like handwritten signatures in some ways – but they are much more difficult to forge. (my emphasis) According to the UK Card Association Rumour: A fraudster can steal my details from my contactless card. Fact: You have to be extremely close to someone for their gadget to be able to read your card - and even then all they would ever get is the card number and expiry date. That’s the same information you see by simply looking at the front of any card.There’s no way anyone can get the security code on the back of the card, your name and address, or bank account details. The vast majority of online retailers require additional details like these and others to make a purchase. However, according to a Guardian newspaper report of 2015-07-25: Researchers bought cheap, widely available card scanners from a mainstream website to see if they could “steal” key details from a contactless card. They tested 10 different credit and debit cards, that were meant to be coded to “mask” personal data, and were able to read crucial data that was meant to be hidden. It then went shopping with the information it had obtained and was able to successfully place orders for items including a £3,000 television set. So yes, even in the civilized world, our security is undermined by a combination of: How does Apple Pay work? See Apple Pay Must Be Using the Mag-Stripe Mode of the EMV Contactless Specifications Clearly, Apple Pay must following the EMV contactless specifications of books C-2, C-3 and C-4 for MasterCard, Visa and American Express transactions respectively. More specifically, it must be following what I called above the “mobile phone profile” of the contactless specifications. It must be implementing the contactless mag-stripe mode, since magnetic stripe infrastructure is still prevalent in the US. It may or may not be implementing contactless EMV mode today, but will probably implement it in the future as the infrastructure for supporting payments with contact cards is phased in over the next year in the US.\"" }, { "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": "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": "410590", "title": "", "text": "\"Almost every online datasources provide historical prices on given company / index's performance; from this, you can easily calculate \"\"standard deviation\"\" by yourself. With that said, standard deviation presumes a fixed set of data. Most public corporations have data spanning multiple decades, during which a number of things have changed: For these reasons, I have doubts on simplistic measures, such as \"\"standard deviation\"\" measuring any reality on the underlying vehicle. Professional investors usually tend to more time-point data, such as P/E ratio.\"" } ]

[ { "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": "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": "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": "364575", "title": "", "text": "OK, my fault for not doing more research. Wikipedia explains this well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Option_style#Difference_in_value Basically, there are some cases where it's advantageous to exercise an American option early. For non-gold currency options, this is only when the carrying cost (interest rate differential aka swap rate or rollover rate) is high. The slight probability that this may occur makes an American option worth slightly more." }, { "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": "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": "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": "451348", "title": "", "text": "\"The question \"\"do they?\"\" is a fair one, but the answer, \"\"we can only observe the past, and that's what they did,\"\" may not be so satisfying to you. It's safe to say that any longer term view of any market will show far less volatility than a short one. It only takes a glance at the return of the 2000's 2009 27.11 2008 -37.22 2007 5.46 2006 15.74 2005 4.79 2004 10.82 2003 28.72 2002 -22.27 2001 -11.98 2000 -9.11 (for the S&P) to see that in an awful decade containing -37% and -22% that the full decade was \"\"only\"\" down 9% in total or just less than 1% per year compounded. I'm not predicting any particular returns forward, just noting this is how the math works. DCA performs well through such a decade, better than in a rising one. You are offered the opportunity to buy into a market selling below the long term trend. Added note in response to Enno's answer below - On rereading the linked article, I see where the author cites Zvi Bodie who clearly made a logical error. He concludes that since a 20 month S&P put costs triple what a 2.3 mo put costs, that there's more risk the market falls over the longer period, not less. American options can be sold or exercised at any time. If a 2 year option were cheaper than a 2 month option, no one would buy the shorter term. It's pretty simple that the Options Pricing Models take time into account and their value, put or call, increases along with the time till expiration. On a lighter note, when I take the S&P data for 1871-2012 (I know, no S&P back then, but it's Schiller's data) I get average 40 year returns of 44X, similar to the author's conclusion, $1K growing to $44K. But, the Standard deviation is 28. So the high end of +1 STDEV is $72K, not the author's $166K. Although, the low end 44-28=16 comes close to his $14K figure. $16K is a 7.18% long term return which today doesn't look bad. When the article was written, the author was looking at a 6% short term risk free rate.\"" }, { "docid": "373585", "title": "", "text": "My understanding is that all ETF options are American style, meaning they can be exercised before expiration, and so you could do the staggered exercises as you described." }, { "docid": "94262", "title": "", "text": "There are two basic kinds of derivatives - forward contracts and options. A forward is an agreement between two parties for one party to buy/sell some asset to the other at a price that they agree upon today at some date in the future. An option is an agreement that gives one party the right, but not the obligation, to buy/sell the asset at some date in the future. Most derivatives that exist are a combination of these two things. For instance, a futures contract is a standardized forward contract that is traded on an exchange, and a swap is a portfolio (or chain) of forward contracts linked together. American/Bermudan options are just options that allow you to exercise on more than one day." }, { "docid": "128878", "title": "", "text": "One potentially useful option to avoid the crippling tuition fees in the states is to instead get your degree abroad. Numerous European countries have very low tuition fees, even for international students. Tuition can be as low as a 1000 EUR and housing is generally also very affordable. There is of course the language barrier but many universities are oriented towards receiving international students, providing relocation assistance and offering courses in English. As a bonus, most Europeans speak excellent English and are generally quite happy to practice it so you shouldn't have any problems off-campus either. Going to the UK is an option but likely considerably more expensive than colleges in mainland Europe. This article, while written for a Nigerian audience, lists some of the most attractive options for the international student. The quality of the education is also generally very high for these colleges. As an example Belgium, one of the cheapest options in the list, has two universities ranked in the Top 100: Leuven and Ghent. Many other German, French, Dutch or Scandinavian universities figure in that list." }, { "docid": "382381", "title": "", "text": "\"You are thinking about it this way: \"\"The longer I wait to exericse, the more knowledge and information I'll have, thus the more confidence I can have that I'll be able to sell at a profit, minimizing risk. If I exercise early and still have to wait, there may never be a chance I can sell at a profit, and I'll have lost the money I paid to exercise and any tax I had to pay when I exercised.\"\" All of that is true. But if you exercise early: The fair market value of the stock will probably be lower, so you may pay less income tax when you exercise. (This depends on your tax situation. Currently, ISO exercises affect your AMT.) If the company goes through a phase where the value is unusually high, you'll be able to sell and still get the tax benefits because you exercised earlier. You avoid the nightmare scenario where you leave the company (voluntarily or not) and can't afford to exercise your options because of the tax implications. In many realistic cases, exercising earlier means less risk. Imagine if you're working at a company that is privately held and you expect to be there for another year or so. You are very optimistic about the company, but not sure when it will IPO or get acquired and that may be several years off. The fair market value of the stock is low now, but may be much higher in a year. In this case, it makes a lot of sense to exercise now. The cost is low because the fair market value is low so it won't result in a huge tax bill. And then when you leave in a year, you won't have to choose between forfeiting your options or borrowing money to pay the much higher taxes due to exercise them then.\"" }, { "docid": "134239", "title": "", "text": "\"The basic idea is that money's worth is dependent on what it can be used to buy. The principal driver of monetary exchange (using one type of currency to \"\"buy\"\" another) is that usually, transactions for goods or services in a particular country must be made using that country's official currency. So, if the U.S. has something very valuable (let's say iPhones) that people in other countries want to buy, they have to buy dollars and then use those dollars to buy the consumer electronics from sellers in the U.S. Each country has a \"\"basket\"\" of things they produce that another country will want, and a \"\"shopping list\"\" of things of value they want from that other country. The net difference in value between the basket and shopping list determines the relative demand for one currency over another; the dollar might gain value relative to the Euro (and thus a Euro will buy fewer dollars) because Europeans want iPhones more than Americans want BMWs, or conversely the Euro can gain strength against the dollar because Americans want BMWs more than Europeans want iPhones. The fact that iPhones are actually made in China kind of plays into it, kind of not; Apple pays the Chinese in Yuan to make them, then receives dollars from international buyers and ships the iPhones to them, making both the Yuan and the dollar more valuable than the Euro or other currencies. The total amount of a currency in circulation can also affect relative prices. Right now the American Fed is pumping billions of dollars a day into the U.S. economy. This means there's a lot of dollars floating around, so they're easy to get and thus demand for them decreases. It's more complex than that (for instance, the dollar is also used as the international standard for trade in oil; you want oil, you pay for it in dollars, increasing demand for dollars even when the United States doesn't actually put any oil on the market to sell), but basically think of different currencies as having value in and of themselves, and that value is affected by how much the market wants that currency.\"" }, { "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": "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": "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": "73256", "title": "", "text": "I would expect that your position will be liquidated when the option expires, but not before. There's probably still some time value so it doesn't make sense for the buyer to exercise the option early and take your stock. Instead they could sell the option to someone else and collect the remaining time value. Occasionally there's a weird situation for whatever reason, where an option has near-zero or negative time value, and then you might get an early exercise. But in general if there's time value someone would want to sell rather than exercise. If the option hasn't expired, maybe the stock will even fall again and you'll keep it. If the option just expired, maybe the exercise just hasn't been processed yet, it may take overnight or so." }, { "docid": "376145", "title": "", "text": "The middle class in Europe is much poorer than statistics would reveal. Why? Because despite higher marginal income tax rates, taxation in Western Europe is highly regressive. Low and middle class Europeans have to pay a lot more for energy &amp; consumer goods than Americans. Quite frankly, that's what matters to most people in life. Stuff. Big cars, big houses, a closet overflowing with clothes, the latest gadgets, etc. Even poor Americans have all that. Most Europeans don't." }, { "docid": "357500", "title": "", "text": "In the question you cited, I assumed immediate exercise, that is why you understood that I was talking about 30 days after grant. I actually mentioned that assumption in the answer. Sec. 83(b) doesn't apply to options, because options are not assets per se. It only applies to restricted stocks. So the 30 days start counting from the time you get the restricted stock, which is when you early-exercise. As to the AMT, the ISO spread will be considered AMT income in the year of the exercise, if you file the 83(b). For NQSO it is ordinary income. That's the whole point of the election. You can find more detailed explanation on this website." }, { "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": "556191", "title": "", "text": "Typically, preferred shares come with one or both different benefits - a disproportionate share of votes, say 10 votes per share vs the normal 1, or a preferred dividend. The vote preference is great for the owner(s) looking to go public, but not lose control of the company. Say, I am a Walton (of Walmart fame) and when I went public, I sold 80% of the (1000 share total) company. But, in creating the share structure, 20% of shares were assigned 10 votes each. 800 shares now trade with 800 votes, 200 shares have 10 votes each or 2000 votes. So, there are still the 1000 shares but 2800 votes. The 20% of shares now have 2000/2800 or 71% of the total votes. So, my shares are just less than half ownership, but over 78% of votes. Preferred dividend is as simple as that, buy Stock A for ownership, or (same company) Stock A preferred shares which have ownership and $1/yr dividend. Edited to show a bit more math. I use a simple example to call out a total 1000 shares. The percentages would be the same for a million or billion shares if 20% were a 10 vote preferred." } ]

[ { "docid": "385955", "title": "", "text": "\"Comparing index funds to long-term investments in individual companies? A counterintuitive study by Jeremy Siegel addressed a similar question: Would you be better off sticking with the original 500 stocks in the S&P 500, or like an index fund, changing your investments as the index is changed? The study: \"\"Long-Term Returns on the Original S&P 500 Companies\"\" Siegel found that the original 500 (including spinoffs, mergers, etc.) would do slightly better than a changing index. This is likely because the original 500 companies take on a value (rather than growth) aspect as the decades pass, and value stocks outperform growth stocks. Index funds' main strength may be in the behavior change they induce in some investors. To the extent that investors genuinely set-and-forget their index fund investments, they far outperform the average investor who mis-times the market. The average investor enters and leaves the market at the worst times, underperforming by a few percentage points each year on average. This buying-high and selling-low timing behavior damages long-term returns. Paying active management fees (e.g. 1% per year) makes returns worse. Returns compound on themselves, a great benefit to the investor. Fees also compound, to the benefit of someone other than the investor. Paying 1% annually to a financial advisor may further dent long-term returns. But Robert Shiller notes that advisors can dissuade investors from market timing. For clients who will always follow advice, the 1% advisory fee is worth it.\"" }, { "docid": "112946", "title": "", "text": "The actual price is represented on charts and not the change in price as a percentage, because it is the actual price which is used in all other parts of analysis (both technical and fundamental), and it is the actual figure the security is bought and sold at. A change in price has to be relative to a previous price at a previous time, and we can easily work out the change in price over any given time period. I think what you are concerned about is how to compare a certain actual price change in low priced securities to the same actual price change in a higher priced securities. For example: $1.00 rise in a $2.00 stock representing a 50% increase in price; $1.00 rise in a $10.00 stock representing a 10% increase in price. On a standard chart both of these look the same, as they both show a $1.00 increase in price. So what can we do to show the true representation of the percentage increase in price? It is actually quite simple. You view the chart using a log scale instead of a standard scale (most charting packages should have this option). What may look like a bubble on a standard scale chart, looks like a healthy uptrend on a log scale chart and represents a true picture of the percentage change in price. Example of Standard Price Scale VS LOG Price Scale on a Chart Standard Price Scale On the standard scale the price seems to have very little movement from Mar09 to Jan12 and then the price seems to zoom up after Jan12 to Mar13. This is because a 4% increase (for example) of $0.50 is only $0.02, whilst a 4% increase of $7.00 $0.28, so the increases seem much bigger at the end of the chart. LOG Price Scale On the LOG chart however, these price changes seem to be more evenly displayed no matter at what price level the price change has occurred at. This thus give a better representation of how fast or slow the price is rising or falling, or the size of the change in price." }, { "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": "387035", "title": "", "text": "Your gain is $1408. The difference between 32% of your gain and 15% of your gain is $236.36 or $1.60 per share. If you sell now, you have $3957.44 after taxes. Forget about the ESPP for a moment. Are you be willing to wager $4000 on the proposition that your company's stock price won't go down more than $1.60 or so over the next 18 months? I've never felt it was worth it. Also, I never thought it made much sense to own any of my employer's stock. If their business does poorly, I'd prefer not to have both my job and my money at risk. If you sell now: Now assuming you hold for 18 months, pay 15% capital gains tax, and the stock price drops by $1.60 to $23.40:" }, { "docid": "9876", "title": "", "text": "One reason a company might choose to pay a dividend is because of the desire of influential stockholders to receive the dividend. In the case of Ford, for example, there are 70 million shares of Class B stock which receive the same dividend per share as do the common stock holders. Even though there are 3.8 billion shares of common stock, the Class B owners (which are Ford family) hold 40% of the voting power and so their desires are given much weight. The Class B owners prefer regular dividends because if enough were to sell their Class B shares, all Class B shares (as a block) would have their voting power drop from 40% to 30%, and with further sales all special voting would be lost and each Class B share would be equivalent to a common share in voting power. Hence the Class B owners, both for themselves and for all of the family members holding Class B, avoid selling shares and prefer receiving dividends." }, { "docid": "501153", "title": "", "text": "\"From How are indexes weighted?: Market-capitalization weighted indexes (or market cap- or cap-weighted indexes) weight their securities by market value as measured by capitalization: that is, current security price * outstanding shares. The vast majority of equity indexes today are cap-weighted, including the S&P 500 and the FTSE 100. In a cap-weighted index, changes in the market value of larger securities move the index’s overall trajectory more than those of smaller ones. If the fund you are referencing is an ETF then there may be some work to do to figure out what underlying securities to use when handling Creation and Redemption units as an ETF will generally have shares created in 50,000 shares at a time through Authorized Participants. If the fund you are referencing is an open-end fund then there is still cash flows to manage in the fund as the fund has create and redeem shares in on a daily basis. Note in both cases that there can be updates to an index such as quarterly rebalancing of outstanding share counts, changes in members because of mergers, acquisitions or spin-offs and possibly a few other factors. How to Beat the Benchmark has a piece that may also be useful here for those indices with many members from 1998: As you can see, its TE is also persistently positive, but if anything seems to be declining over time. In fact, the average net TE for the whole period is +0.155% per month, or an astounding +1.88% pa net after expenses. The fund expense ratio is 0.61% annually, for a whopping before expense TE of +2.5% annually. This is once again highly statistically significant, with p values of 0.015 after expenses and 0.0022 before expenses. (The SD of the TE is higher for DFSCX than for NAESX, lowering its degree of statistical significance.) It is remarkable enough for any fund to beat its benchmark by 2.5% annually over 17 years, but it is downright eerie to see this done by an index fund. To complete the picture, since 1992 the Vanguard Extended Index Fund has beaten its benchmark (the Wilshire 4500) by 0.56% per year after expenses (0.81% net of expenses), and even the Vanguard Index Trust 500 has beaten its benchmark by a razor thin 0.08% annually before (but not after) expenses in the same period. So what is going on here? A hint is found in DFA's 1996 Reference Guide: The 9-10 Portfolio captures the return behavior of U.S. small company stocks as identified by Rolf Banz and other academic researchers. Dimensional employs a \"\"patient buyer\"\" discount block trading strategy which has resulted in negative total trading costs, despite the poor liquidity of small company stocks. Beginning in 1982, Ibbotson Associates of Chicago has used the 9-10 Portfolio results to calculate the performance of small company stocks for their Stocks, Bonds, Bills, and Inflation yearbook. A small cap index fund cannot possibly own all of the thousands of stocks in its benchmark; instead it owns a \"\"representative sample.\"\" Further, these stocks are usually thinly traded, with wide bid/ask spreads. In essence what the folks at DFA learned was that they could tell the market makers in these stocks, \"\"Look old chaps, we don't have to own your stock, and unless you let us inside your spread, we'll pitch our tents elsewhere. Further, we're prepared to wait until a motivated seller wishes to unload a large block.\"\" In a sense, this gives the fund the luxury of picking and choosing stocks at prices more favorable than generally available. Hence, higher long term returns. It appears that Vanguard did not tumble onto this until a decade later, but tumble they did. To complete the picture, this strategy works best in the thinnest markets, so the excess returns are greatest in the smallest stocks, which is why the positive TE is greatest for the DFA 9-10 Fund, less in the Vanguard Small Cap Fund, less still in the Vanguard Index Extended Fund, and minuscule with the S&P500. There are some who say the biggest joke in the world of finance is the idea of value added active management. If so, then the punch line seems to be this: If you really want to beat the indexes, then you gotta buy an index fund.\"" }, { "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": "414215", "title": "", "text": "\"From the Times A Reader Q.&A. on G.M.’s Bankruptcy Q. I own G.M. preferred shares. Should I be looking to sell them, or hold on? I bought them at $25 a share when they were issued in late 2001. — Karen, Manhattan A. When a company files for bankruptcy, its various stock and bondholders essentially get in line. The first investors to be repaid are secured debt holders, then senior bond investors, followed by subordinated debt holders. Preferred shareholders are next, and lastly, holders of common stock. In a bankruptcy, preferred shares are usually worthless, much like shares of common stock. But in the case of G.M., there may be some good — or at least somewhat better — news. Most of G.M.’s preferred shares are actually senior notes or “quarterly interest bonds,” which means you will be treated as a bondholder, according to Marilyn Cohen, president of Envision Capital Management. So you will be able to exchange your preferreds for G.M. stock (bondholders will receive 10 percent of the new company’s stock). It’s not the best deal, but it beats the empty bag true preferred shareholders would have been left holding. Of course this is just one example, and you were hoping to get some larger picture. The article stated \"\"In a bankruptcy, preferred shares are usually worthless, much like shares of common stock\"\" which at least is a bit closer to that, if you accept usually as a statistic.\"" }, { "docid": "114834", "title": "", "text": "\"I agree with the answer by @Michael that this number doesn't exist. It's hard to see what use it would have and it would be difficult to track. I'm writing a separate answer because I also disagree with the premise of your question: Individual shares of stock have never to my knowledge had such a number. Your comment about numbers on stock certificates identifies the certificate document, which will generally represent multiple shares of stock. That number no more identifies a single share of stock than the serial number on a $10 bill identifies any one of the ten dollars it represents. Even at the \"\"collective\"\" unit of $10, when the bill is eventually replaced with a new one, the new bill has a new number. No continuity.\"" }, { "docid": "171135", "title": "", "text": "\"You are probably going to hate my answer, but... If there was an easy way to ID stocks like FB that were going to do what FB did, then those stocks wouldn't exist and do that because they would be priced higher at the IPO. The fact is there is always some doubt, no one knows the future, and sometimes value only becomes clear with time. Everyone wants to buy a stock before it rises right? It will only be worth a rise if it makes more profit though, and once it is established as making more profit the price will be already up, because why wouldn't it be? That means to buy a real winner you have to buy before it is completely obvious to everyone that it is going to make more profit in the future, and that means stock prices trade at speculative prices, based on expected future performance, not current or past performance. Now I'm not saying past and future performance has nothing in common, but there is a reason that a thousand financially oriented websites quote a disclaimer like \"\"past performance is not necessarily a guide to future performance\"\". Now maybe this is sort of obvious, but looking at your image, excluding things like market capital that you've not restricted, the PE ratio is based on CURRENT price and PAST earnings, the dividend yield is based on PAST publications of what the dividend will be and CURRENT price, the price to book is based on PAST publication of the company balance sheet and CURRENT price, the EPS is based on PAST earnings and the published number of shares, and the ROI and net profit margin in based on published PAST profits and earnings and costs and number of shares. So it must be understood that every criteria chosen is PAST data that analysts have been looking at for a lot longer than you have with a lot more additional information and experience with it. The only information that is even CURRENT is the price. Thus, my ultimate conclusive point is, you can't based your stock picks on criteria like this because it's based on past information and current stock price, and the current stock price is based on the markets opinion of relative future performance. The only way to make a good stock pick is understand the business, understand its market, and possibly understand world economics as it pertains to that market and business. You can use various criteria as an initial filter to find companies and investigate them, but which criteria you use is entirely your preference. You might invest only in profitable companies (ones that make money and probably pay regular dividends), thus excluding something like an oil exploration company, which will just lose money, and lose it, and lose some more, forever... unless it hits the jackpot, in which case you might suddenly find yourself sitting on a huge profit. It's a question of risk and preference. Regarding your concern for false data. Google defines the Return on investment (TTM) (%) as: Trailing twelve month Income after taxes divided by the average (Total Long-Term Debt + Long-Term Liabilities + Shareholders Equity), expressed as a percentage. If you really think they have it wrong you could contact them, but it's probably correct for whatever past data or last annual financial results it's based on.\"" }, { "docid": "173052", "title": "", "text": "\"Probably the best way to investigate this is to look at an example. First, as the commenters above have already said, the log-return from one period is log(price at time t/price at time t-1) which is approximately equal to the percentage change in the price from time t-1 to time t, provided that this percentage change is not big compared to the size of the price. (Note that you have to use the natural log, ie. log to the base e -- ln button on a calculator -- here.) The main use of the log-return is that is a proxy for the percentage change in the price, which turns out to be mathematically convenient, for various reasons which have mostly already been mentioned in the comments. But you already know this; your actual question is about the average log-return over a period of time. What does this indicate about the stock? The answer is: if the stock price is not changing very much, then the average log-return is about equal to the average percentage change in the price, and is very easy and quick to calculate. But if the stock price is very volatile, then the average log-return can be wildly different to the average percentage change in the price. Here is an example: the closing prices for Pitchfork Oil from last week's trading are: 10, 5, 12, 5, 10, 2, 15. The percentage changes are: -0.5, 1.4, -0.58, 1, -0.8, 6.5 (where -0.5 means -50%, etc.) The average percentage change is 1.17, or 117%. On the other hand, the log-returns for the same period are -0.69, 0.88, -0.88, 0.69, -1.6, 2, and the average log-return is about 0.068. If we used this as a proxy for the average percentage change in the price over the whole seven days, we would get 6.8% instead of 117%, which is wildly wrong. The reason why it is wrong is because the price fluctuated so much. On the other hand, the closing prices for United Marshmallow over the same period are 10, 11, 12, 11, 12, 13, 15. The average percentage change from day to day is 0.073, and the average log-return is 0.068, so in this case the log-return is very close to the percentage change. And it has the advantage of being computable from just the first and last prices, because the properties of logarithms imply that it simplifies to (log(15)-log(10))/6. Notice that this is exactly the same as for Pitchfork Oil. So one reason why you might be interested in the average log-return is that it gives a very quick way to estimate the average return, if the stock price is not changing very much. Another, more subtle reason, is that it actually behaves better than the percentage return. When the price of Pitchfork jumps from 5 to 12 and then crashes back to 5 again, the percentage changes are +140% and -58%, for an average of +82%. That sounds good, but if you had bought it at 5, and then sold it at 5, you would actually have made 0% on your money. The log-returns for the same period do not have this disturbing property, because they do add up to 0%. What's the real difference in this example? Well, if you had bought $1 worth of Pitchfork on Tuesday, when it was 5, and sold it on Wednesday, when it was 12, you would have made a profit of $1.40. If you had then bought another $1 on Wednesday and sold it on Thursday, you would have made a loss of $0.58. Overall, your profit would have been $0.82. This is what the average percentage return is calculating. On the other hand, if you had been a long-term investor who had bought on Tuesday and hung on until Thursday, then quoting an \"\"average return\"\" of 82% is highly misleading, because it in no way corresponds to the return of 0% which you actually got! The moral is that it may be better to look at the log-returns if you are a buy-and-hold type of investor, because log-returns cancel out when prices fluctuate, whereas percentage changes in price do not. But the flip-side of this is that your average log-return over a period of time does not give you much information about what the prices have been doing, since it is just (log(final price) - log(initial price))/number of periods. Since it is so easy to calculate from the initial and final prices themselves, you commonly won't see it in the financial pages, as far as I know. Finally, to answer your question: \"\"Does knowing this single piece of information indicate something about the stock?\"\", I would say: not really. From the point of view of this one indicator, Pitchfork Oil and United Marshmallow look like identical investments, when they are clearly not. Knowing the average log-return is exactly the same as knowing the ratio between the final and initial prices.\"" }, { "docid": "142835", "title": "", "text": "All investors of equal standing get the same proportion of the net assets on bankruptcy but not all shareholders are of equal standing. In general, once all liabilities are covered, bond holders are paid first as that type of investment is company debt, then preferred stock holders are paid out and then common shareholders. This is the reason why preferred stock is usually cheaper - it is less risky as it has a higher claim to assets and therefore commands a lower risk premium. The exact payout schedule is very corporation dependent so needs research on a per firm basis." }, { "docid": "504243", "title": "", "text": "There are books on the subject of valuing stocks. P/E ratio has nothing directly to do with the value of a company. It may be an indication that the stock is undervalued or overvalued, but does not indicate the value itself. The direct value of company is what it would fetch if it was liquidated. For example, if you bought a dry cleaner and sold all of the equipment and receivables, how much would you get? To value a living company, you can treat it like a bond. For example, assume the company generates $1 million in profit every year and has a liquidation value of $2 million. Given the risk profile of the business, let's say we would like to make 8% on average per year, then the value of the business is approximately $1/0.08 + $2 = $14.5 million to us. To someone who expects to make more or less the value might be different. If the company has growth potential, you can adjust this figure by estimating the estimated income at different percentage chances of growth and decline, a growth curve so to speak. The value is then the net area under this curve. Of course, if you do this for NYSE and most NASDAQ stocks you will find that they have a capitalization way over these amounts. That is because they are being used as a store of wealth. People are buying the stocks just as a way to store money, not necessarily make a profit. It's kind of like buying land. Even though the land may never give you a penny of profit, you know you can always sell it and get your money back. Because of this, it is difficult to value high-profile equities. You are dealing with human psychology, not pennies and dollars." }, { "docid": "596821", "title": "", "text": "looking over some historical data I cannot really a find a case where a stock went from $0.0005 to $1 it almost seem that once a stock crosses a minimum threshold the stock never goes back up. Is there any truth to that? That would be a 2000X (200,000%) increase in the per-share value which would be extraordinary. When looking at stock returns you have to look at percentage returns, not dollar returns. A gain of $1 would be minuscule for Berkshire-Hathaway stock but would be astronomical for this stock,. If the company is making money shouldn't the stock go up? Not necessarily. The price of a stock is a measure of expected future performance, not necessarily past performance. If the earnings had been more that the market expected, then the price might go up, but if the market sees it as an anomaly that won't continue then there may not be enough buyers to move the stock up. looking at it long term would it hurt me in anyway to buy ~100,000 shares which right now would run be about $24 (including to fee) and sit on it? If you can afford to lose all $24 then no, it won't hurt. But I wouldn't expect that $24 to turn into anything higher than about $100. At best it might be an interesting learning experience." }, { "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": "583626", "title": "", "text": "I don't see a tag for United States, so I'm having to assume this is US taxes. It doesn't matter what app you use, IRS trades are all calculated the same. First, you have to report each trade on a 8949 and from that the totals go into a schedule D. Short term trades are stocks that you've kept exactly one year or less, long term trades are for 1 year + 1 day or more. Trades where you sold a stock for a loss, then bought that stock back again under 30 days don't get to count as a loss. This only affects realized capital gains and losses, you don't count fees. First, take all of your short term gains then offset them by all of your short term losses. Do the same for long term gains and losses. Short and long term gains are taxed at different rates. You can deduct losses from short term to your long term and vice versa. Then you can deduct the total losses up to $3000 (household, $1500 married, filing separately) per year on your regular income taxes or other dividend taxes. If you have over $3000 in losses, then you need to carry that over to subsequent years. Edited per Dave's comments: thanks Dave" }, { "docid": "176859", "title": "", "text": "I know this has already been answered and I know its frowned upon to dump a link, however, when it comes to investments it's best to get data from an 'official' source to avoid misinterpretations and personal opinions. The attached pdf is from the S&P and provides detailed, but not overwhelming, information regarding the types of preferreds, the risks & common terminology: http://us.spindices.com/documents/education/practice-essentials-us-preferreds.pdf Page 1: PREFERRED SECURITIES DEFINED Borrowing from two worlds, a preferred security has both equity and fixed income characteristics. As such, the preferred structure offers a flexible approach to structuring a preferred offering for an issuer. Companies have many reasons to issue preferred securities. Financial institutions, for example, need to raise capital. Many times they will use the preferred market because of any required regulatory requirements, in addition to cost considerations. Banks and financial institutions are required to maintain a certain level of Tier 1 capital—which includes common equity and perpetual non-cumulative preferreds—as protection against the bank’s liabilities. Issuing more common equity comes at a cost, including the dilution of existing shares, which a company may not want to bear. Preferred securities are a cheaper alternative approach to raising the capital. Companies often use preferred stock for strategic reasons. Some of these uses include:" }, { "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": "470692", "title": "", "text": "Edit: I a in the United States, seek advice from someone who is also in Australia. I am getting about 5.5% per year by investing in a fund (ticker:PGF) that, in turn, buys preferred stock in banks. Preferred stock acts a bit like a bond and a bit like a stock. The price is very stable. However, a bank account is FDIC insured (in the USA) and an investment is not. I use the Reinvestment program at Scottrade so that the monthly dividends are automatically reinvested with no commission. However I do not know if this is available outside of the United States. Investing yealds greater returns but exposes you to greater risk. You have to know your risk tolerance." } ]

[ { "docid": "272784", "title": "", "text": "Preferred stocks are, err... Preferred. The whole point of preferred stocks is that they have some preference over other classes of stocks (there may be more than 2, by the way). It can be more voting rights, more dividends or priority on dividends' distribution (common with VC investments), or priority on liquidations (in bankruptcy, preferred stock holders are ranked higher than common). Many times initial or critical investments are made on preferred terms, and the stocks are converted to common when certain thresholds are met. Obviously all these benefits require a premium on the price." } ]

[ { "docid": "499344", "title": "", "text": "\"The correlation I heard most about in economics/finance was that stock prices and bond yields were negatively correlated; as the stock market does better, bond yields fall (company's doing well as evidenced by stocks, so it's a good credit risk, so YTM of its bonds on the market goes down). The correlation, if any, between the stock and futures market should be visible in the actual price histories. Index prices may be useful, but what's more likely is that various future prices have correlation with various companies' stocks. Where the future reflects the price of a raw material that is a significant cost of goods sold for a company, you'll see these two move inversely to each other in the short term. I think that if there is a causative relationship here, its that futures prices influence stock prices, not the other way around. The futures market generally represents the cost side of a consumer goods producer's bottom line. The stock market represents its profits. As futures go up, profit expectations go down, putting pressure on stock prices. Industries that deal in services, or in other types of goods, can still be affected because a rise in the cost of something consumers need will cause them to spend less on other things which affects margins in those other areas. So, in the short and medium term, when the futures market goes up the stock market sees a dip, and vice versa. However, companies adapt; they can put upward pressure on prices for their goods to restore their desired margins, usually by slowly increasing them to prevent sticker shock (though elasticity of demand plays a part; the more we need something no matter what it costs, the faster prices can increase). To maintain costs, they can make things cheaper using less expensive materials (more plastic, less steel). They can restructure production processes (translated: move factories offshore, or at least to \"\"right-to-work\"\" states with less union strength) to save costs elsewhere. All of these reduce costs and thus increase profits, but take time to implement. Many of these things reduce direct costs, reducing demand for the commodity and causing the futures prices to go back down. So, over the long term, these differences even out, and it's down to the things that affect the entire market (inflation, consumer/investor confidence, monetary policy).\"" }, { "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": "442324", "title": "", "text": "What drives the stock of bankrupt companies? The company's potential residual assets. When a company goes bankrupt it is required to sell its assets to pay off its debts. The funds raised from selling assets go to the following entities: The usual order of debt repayment, in terms of the lender, will be the government, financial institutions, other creditors (i.e. suppliers and utility companies), bondholders, preferred shareholders and, finally, common shareholders. Depending on the amount of debt and the value of a company's assets, the common shareholders may receive some left over from liquidated assets. This would drive the stock price of a bankrupt company." }, { "docid": "352484", "title": "", "text": "\"In financial theory, there is no reason for a difference in investor return to exist between dividend paying and non-dividend paying stocks, except for tax consequences. This is because in theory, a company can either pay dividends to investors [who can reinvest the funds themselves], or reinvest its capital and earn the same return on that reinvestment [and the shareholder still has the choice to sell a fraction of their holdings, if they prefer to have cash]. That theory may not match reality, because often companies pay or don't pay dividends based on their stage of life. For example, early-stage mining companies often have no free cashflow to pay dividends [they are capital intensive until the mines are operational]. On the other side, longstanding companies may have no projects left that would be a good fit for further investment, and so they pay out dividends instead, effectively allowing the shareholder to decide where to reinvest the money. Therefore, saying \"\"dividend paying\"\"/\"\"growth stock\"\" can be a proxy for talking about the stage of life + risk and return of a company. Saying dividend paying implies \"\"long-standing blue chip company with relatively low capital requirements and a stable business\"\". Likewise \"\"growth stocks\"\" [/ non-dividend paying] implies \"\"new startup company that still needs capital and thus is somewhat unproven, with a chance for good return to match the higher risk\"\". So in theory, dividend payment policy makes no difference. In practice, it makes a difference for two reasons: (1) You will most likely be taxed differently on selling stock vs receiving dividends [Which one is better for you is a specific question relying on your jurisdiction, your current income, and things like what type of stock / how long you hold it]. For example in Canada, if you earn ~ < $40k, your dividends are very likely to have a preferential tax treatment to selling shares for capital gains [but your province and specific other numbers would influence this]. In the United States, I believe capital gains are usually preferential as long as you hold the shares for a long time [but I am not 100% on this without looking it up]. (2) Dividend policy implies differences in the stage of life / risk level of a stock. This implication is not guaranteed, so be sure you are using other considerations to determine whether this is the case. Therefore which dividend policy suits you better depends on your tax position and your risk tolerance.\"" }, { "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": "95397", "title": "", "text": "Shares in a company represent a portion of a company. If that company takes in money and doesn't pay it out as a dividend (e.g. Apple), the company is still more valuable because it has cold hard cash as an asset. Theoretically, it's all the same whether your share of the money is inside the company or outside the company; the only immediate difference is tax treatment. Of course, for large bank accounts that means that an investment in the company is a mix of investment in the bank account and investment in the business-value of the company, which may stymie investors who aren't particularly interested in buying larve amounts of bank accounts (known for low returns) and would prefer to receive their share of the cash to invest elsewhere (or in the business portion of the company.) Companies like Apple have in fact taken criticism for this. Your company could also use that cash to invest in itself (growing the value of its profits) or buy other companies that are worth money, essentially doing the job for you. Of course, they can do the job well or they can do it poorly... A company could also be acquired by a larger company, or taken private, in exchange for cash or the stock of another company. This is another way that the company's value could be returned to its shareholders." }, { "docid": "460347", "title": "", "text": "As has been pointed out, one isn't cheaper than the other. One may have a lower price per share than the other, but that's not the same thing. Let's pretend that the total market valuation of all the stocks within the index was $10,000,000. (Look, I said let's pretend.) You want to invest $1,000. For the time being, let's also pretend that your purchasing 0.01% of all the stock won't affect prices anywhere. One company splits the index into 10,000 parts worth $1,000 each. The other splits the same index into 10,000,000 parts worth $1 each. Both track the underlying index perfectly. If you invest $1,000 with the first company, you get one part; if you invest $1,000 with the second, you get 1,000 parts. Ignoring spreads, transaction fees and the like, immediately after the purchase, both are worth exactly $1,000 to you. Now, suppose the index goes up 2%. The first company's shares of the index (of which you would have exactly one) are now worth $1,020 each, and the second company's shares of the index (of which you would have exactly 1,000) are worth $1.02 each. In each case, you now have index shares valued at $1,020 for a 2% increase ($1,020 / $1,000 = 1.02 = 102% of your original investment). As you can see, there is no reason to look at the price per share unless you have to buy in terms of whole shares, which is common in the stock market but not necessarily common at all in mutual funds. Because in this case, both funds track the same underlying index, there is no real reason to purchase one rather than the other because you believe they will perform differently. In an ideal world, the two will perform exactly equally. The way to compare the price of mutual funds is to look at the expense ratio. The lower the expense ratio is, the cheaper the fund is, and the less of your money is being eroded every day in fees. Unless you have some very good reason to do differently, that is how you should compare the price of any investment vehicles that track the same underlying commodity (in this case, the S&P 500)." }, { "docid": "94159", "title": "", "text": "\"I don't have anything definitive, but in general positions in a company are not affected materially by what is called a corporate action. \"\"Corp Actions\"\" can really be anything that affects the details of a stock. Common examples are a ticker change, or exchange change, IPO (ie a new ticker), doing a split, or merging with another ticker. All of these events do not change the total value of people's positions. If a stock splits, you might have more shares, but they are worth less per share. A merger is quite similar to a split. The old company's stock is converted two the new companies stock at some ratio (ie 10 shares become 1 share) and then converted 1-to-1 to the new symbol. Shorting a stock that splits is no different. You shorted 10 shares, but after the split those are now 100 shares, when you exit the position you have to deliver back 100 \"\"new\"\" shares, though dollar-for-dollar they are the same total value. I don't see why a merger would affect your short position. The only difference is you are now shorting a different company, so when you exit the position you'll have to deliver shares of the new company back to the brokerage where you \"\"borrowed\"\" the shares you shorted.\"" }, { "docid": "550824", "title": "", "text": "It's important to realize that any portfolio, if sufficiently diversified should track overall GDP growth, and anything growing via a percentage per annum is going to double eventually. (A good corner-of-napkin estimate is 70/the percentage = years to double). Just looking at your numbers, if you initially put in the full $7000, an increase to $17000 after 10 years represents a return of ~9.3% per annum (to check my math $7000*1.09279^10 ≈ $17000). Since you've been putting in the $7000 over 10 years the return is going to be a bit more than that, but it's not possible to calculate based on the information given. A return of 9.3% is not bad (some rules of thumb: inflation is about 2-4% so if you are making less than that you're losing money, and 6-10% per annum is generally what you should expect if your portfolio is tracking the market)... I wouldn't consider that rate of return to be particularly amazing, but it's not bad either, as you've done better than you would have if you had invested in an ETF tracking the market. The stock market being what it is, you can't rule out the possibility that you got lucky with your stock picks. If your portfolio was low-risk, a return of 9%ish could be considered amazing, but given that it's about 5-6 different stocks what I'd consider amazing would be a return of 15%+ (to give you something to shoot for!) Either way, for your amount of savings you're probably better off going with a mutual fund or an ETF. The return might be slightly lower, but the risk profile is also lower than you picking your stocks, since the fund/ETF will be more diversified. (and it's less work!)" }, { "docid": "177050", "title": "", "text": "\"Life would be nicer had we not needed lawyers. But for some things - you better get a proper legal advice. This is one of these things. Generally, the United States is a union of 50 different sovereign entities, so you're asking more about Texas, less about the US. So you'd better talk to a Texas lawyer. Usually, stock ownership is only registered by the company itself (and sometimes not even that, look up \"\"street name\"\"), and not reported to the government. You may get a paper stock certificate, but many companies no longer issue those. Don't forget to talk to a lawyer and a tax adviser in your home country, as well. You'll be dealing with tax authorities there as well. The difference between \"\"unoted\"\" (never heard of this term before) and \"\"regular\"\" stocks is that the \"\"unoted\"\" are not publicly traded. As such, many things that your broker does (like tax statements, at source withholding, etc) you and your company will have to do on your own. If your company plans on paying dividends, you'll have to have a US tax ID (ITIN or SSN), and the company will have to withhold the US portion of the taxes. Don't forget to talk to a tax adviser about what happens when you sell the stock. Also, since the company is not publicly traded, consider how will you be able to sell it, if at all.\"" }, { "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": "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": "312811", "title": "", "text": "\"Share sales & purchases are accounted only on the balance sheet & cash flow statement although their effects are seen on the income statement. Remember, the balance sheet is like a snapshot in time of all accrued accounts; it's like looking at a glass of water and noting the level. The cash flow and income statements are like looking at the amount of water, \"\"actually\"\" and \"\"imaginary\"\" respectively, pumped in and out of the glass. So, when a corporation starts, it sells shares to whomever. The amount of cash received is accounted for in the investing section of the cash flow statement under the subheading \"\"issuance (retirement) of stock\"\" or the like, so when shares are sold, it is \"\"issuance\"\"; when a company buys back their shares, it's called \"\"retirement\"\", as cash inflows and outflows respectively. If you had a balance sheet before the shares were sold, you'd see under the \"\"equity\"\" heading a subheading common stock with a nominal (irrelevant) par value (this is usually something obnoxiously low like $0.01 per share used for ease of counting the shares from the Dollar amount in the account) under the subaccount almost always called \"\"common stock\"\". If you looked at the balance sheet after the sale, you'd see the number of shares in a note to the side. When shares trade publicly, the corporation usually has very little to do with it unless if they are selling or buying new shares under whatever label such as IPO, secondary offering, share repurchase, etc, but the corporation's volume from such activity would still be far below the activity of the third parties: shares are trading almost exclusively between third parties. These share sales and purchases will only be seen on the income statement under earnings per share (EPS), as EPS will rise and fall with stock repurchases and sales assuming income is held constant. While not technically part of the income statement but printed with it, the \"\"basic weighted average\"\" and \"\"diluted weighted average\"\" number of shares are also printed which are the weighted average over the reporting period of shares actually issued and expected if all promises to issue shares with employee stock options, grants, convertibles were made kept. The income statement is the accrual accounts of the operations of the company. It has little detail on investing (depreciation & appreciation) or financing (interest expenses & preferred dividends).\"" }, { "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": "260094", "title": "", "text": "So Betas are not found on a company's financial statements. Beta is essentially a measure of the covariance of an asset and the overall market return, in relation to the variance of the market's return. A beta of 1 is to describe an asset whose daily returns mimic the returns of the overall market. A beta of &gt;1 describes an asset whose returns are greater than the market return and a beta &lt;1 describes an asset whose returns are less than the market return. To the extent that the asset you are comparing to the market index is a share of common stock, the beta you are looking at is levered if the company has debt or preferred stock. The technique your professor is alluding to is the process of unlevering betas of two different companies that may have similar underlying operating assets but because of different capital structures, have different betas when using their common stock returns. This adjustment makes comparing different betas between companies agnostic of the capital structure used." }, { "docid": "188232", "title": "", "text": "\"Isn't it true that on the ex-dividend date, the price of the stock goes down roughly the amount of the dividend? That is, what you gain in dividend, you lose in price drop. Yes and No. It Depends! Generally stocks move up and down during the market, and become more volatile on some news. So One can't truly measure if the stock has gone down by the extent of dividend as one cannot isolate other factors for what is a normal share movement. There are time when the prices infact moves up. Now would it have moved more if there was no dividend is speculative. Secondly the dividends are very small percentage compared to the shares trading price. Generally even if 100% dividend are announced, they are on the share capital. On share prices dividends would be less than 1%. Hence it becomes more difficult to measure the movement of stock. Note if the dividend is greater than a said percentage, there are rules that give guidelines to factor this in options and other area etc. Lets not mix these exceptions. Why is everyone making a big deal out of the amount that companies pay in dividends then? Why do some people call themselves \"\"dividend investors\"\"? It doesn't seem to make much sense. There are some set of investors who are passive. i.e. they want to invest in good stock, but don't want to sell it; i.e. more like keep it for long time. At the same time they want some cash potentially to spend; similar to interest received on Bank Deposits. This class of share holders, it makes sense to invest into companies that give dividends, as year on year they keep receiving some money. If they on the other hand has invested into a company that does not give dividends, they would have to sell some units to get the same money back. This is the catch. They have to sell in whole units, there is brokerage, fees, etc, there are tax events. Some countries have taxes that are more friendly to dividends than capital gains. Thus its an individual choice whether to invest into companies that give good dividends or into companies that don't give dividends. Giving or not giving dividends does not make a company good or bad.\"" }, { "docid": "564675", "title": "", "text": "\"From the details you have given it looks like you have \"\"Unit Linked\"\" insurance policy. In such policies a part of the premium goes towards the \"\"Insurance\"\", the balance is invested into \"\"Mutual Funds / stock Market\"\". It is generally not advisable to have \"\"Unit Linked\"\" policy compared to pure \"\"Term\"\" policy. Generally the amount of fees charged for \"\"Unit Linked\"\" policy is high and hence the returns to the end user are low. i.e. if you buy a \"\"Term\"\" insurance for the same sum insured and invest on your own the balance in any \"\"Mutual Fund\"\" you will end up making more that what you are getting now. Typically these policies have 3 years lock-in period. As you have purchased this in 2008, you can cancel the policy without any penalties. This will save you future premium and you can buy a term insurance and invest the difference yourself. Note the unit linked policy is useful for people who do not invest on their own and this is a good way to be forced into saving than nothing else.\"" }, { "docid": "1034", "title": "", "text": "\"What you are describing is a very specific case of the more general principle of how dividend payments work. Broadly speaking, if you own common shares in a corporation, you are a part owner of that corporation; you have the right to a % of all of that corporation's assets. The value in having that right is ultimately because the corporation will pay you dividends while it operates, and perhaps a final dividend when it liquidates at the end of its life. This is why your shares have value - because they give you ownership of the business itself. Now, assume you own 1k shares in a company with 100M shares, worth a total of $5B. You own 0.001% of the company, and each of your shares is worth $50; the total value of all your shares is $50k. Assume further that the value of the company includes $1B in cash. If the company pays out a dividend of $1B, it will now be only worth $4B. Your shares have just gone down in value by 20%! But, you have a right to 0.001% of the dividend, which equals a $10k cash payment to you. Your personal holdings are now $40k worth of shares, plus $10k in cash. Except for taxes, financial theory states that whether a corporation pays a dividend or not should not impact the value to the individual shareholder. The difference between a regular corporation and a mutual fund, is that the mutual fund is actually a pool of various investments, and it reports a breakdown of that pool to you in a different way. If you own shares directly in a corporation, the dividends you receive are called 'dividends', even if you bought them 1 minute before the ex-dividend date. But a payment from a mutual fund can be divided between, for example, a flow through of dividends, interest, or a return of capital. If you 'looked inside' your mutual fund you when you bought it, you would see that 40% of its value comes from stock A, 20% comes from stock B, etc etc., including maybe 1% of the value coming from a pile of cash the fund owns at the time you bought your units. In theory the mutual fund could set aside the cash it holds for current owners only, but then it would need to track everyone's cash-ownership on an individual basis, and there would be thousands of different 'unit classes' based on timing. For simplicity, the mutual fund just says \"\"yes, when you bought $50k in units, we were 1/3 of the year towards paying out a $10k dividend. So of that $10k dividend, $3,333k of it is assumed to have been cash at the time you bought your shares. Instead of being an actual 'dividend', it is simply a return of capital.\"\" By doing this, the mutual fund is able to pay you your owed dividend [otherwise you would still have the same number of units but no cash, meaning you would lose overall value], without forcing you to be taxed on that payment. If the mutual fund didn't do this separate reporting, you would have paid $50k to buy $46,667k of shares and $3,333k of cash, and then you would have paid tax on that cash when it was returned to you. Note that this does not \"\"falsely exaggerate the investment return\"\", because a return of capital is not earnings; that's why it is reported separately. Note that a 'close-ended fund' is not a mutual fund, it is actually a single corporation. You own units in a mutual fund, giving you the rights to a proportion of all the fund's various investments. You own shares in a close-ended fund, just as you would own shares in any other corporation. The mutual fund passes along the interest, dividends, etc. from its investments on to you; the close-ended fund may pay dividends directly to its shareholders, based on its own internal dividend policy.\"" }, { "docid": "193266", "title": "", "text": "Companies do both quite often. They have opposite effects on the share price, but not on the total value to the shareholders. Doing both causes value to shareholders to rise (ie, any un-bought back shares now own a larger percentage of the company and are worth more) and drops the per-share price (so it is easier to buy a share of the stock). To some that's irrelevant, but some might want a share of an otherwise-expensive stock without paying $700 for it. As a specific example of this, Apple (APPL) split its stock in 2014 and also continued a significant buyback program: Apple announces $17B repurchase program, Oct 2014 Apple stock splits 7-to-1 in June 2014. This led to their stock in total being worth more, but costing substantially less per share." } ]

[ { "docid": "13260", "title": "", "text": "Options reflect expectations about the underlying asset, and options are commonly priced using the Black-Scholes model: N(d1) and N(d2) are probability functions, S is the spot (current) price of the asset, K is the strike price, r is the risk free rate, and T-t represents time to maturity. Without getting into the mathematics, it suffices to say that higher volatility or expectation of volatility increases the perceived riskiness of the asset, so call options are priced lower and put options are priced higher. Think about it intuitively. If the stock is more likely to go downwards, then there's an increased chance that the call option expires worthless, so call options must be priced lower to accommodate the relative change in expected value of the option. Puts are priced similarly, but they move inversely with respect to call option prices due to Put-Call parity. So if call option prices are falling, then put option prices are rising (Note, however, that call prices falling does not cause put prices to rise. The inverse relationship exists because of changes in the underlying factors and how pricing works.) So the option action signifies that the market believes the stock is headed lower (in the given time frame). That does not mean it will go lower, and option traders assume risk whenever they take a particular position. Bottom line: gotta do your own homework! Best of luck." } ]

[ { "docid": "410123", "title": "", "text": "\"To add on to the other answers, in asking why funds have different price points one might be asking why stocks aren't normalized so a unit price of $196 in one stock can be directly compared to the same price in another stock. While this might not make sense with AAPL vs. GOOG (it would be like comparing apples to oranges, pun intended, not to mention how would two different companies ever come to such an agreement) it does seem like it would make more sense when tracking an index. And in fact less agreement between different funds would be required as some \"\"natural\"\" price points exist such as dividing by 100 (like some S&P funds do). However, there are a couple of reasons why two different funds might price their shares of the same underlying index differently. Demand - If there are a lot of people wanting the issue, more shares might be issued at a lower price. Or, there might be a lot of demand centered on a certain price range. Pricing - shares that are priced higher will find fewer buyers, because it makes it harder to buy round lots (100 shares at $100/share is $10,000 while at $10/share it's only $1000). While not everyone buys stock in lots, it's important if you do anything with (standardized) options on the stock because they are always acting on lots. In addition, even if you don't buy round lots a higher price makes it harder to buy in for a specific amount because each unit share has a greater chance to be further away from your target amount. Conversely, shares that are priced too low will also find fewer buyers, because some holders have minimum price requirements due to low price (e.g. penny) stocks tending to be more speculative and volatile. So, different funds tracking the same index might pick different price points to satisfy demand that is not being filled by other funds selling at a different price point.\"" }, { "docid": "84870", "title": "", "text": "My interpretation of that sentence is that you can't do the buying/selling of shares outright (sans margin) because of the massive quantity of shares he's talking about. So you have to use margin to buy the stocks. However, because in order to make significant money with this sort of strategy you probably need to be working dozens of stocks at the same time, you need to be familiar with portfolio margin. Since your broker does not calculate margin calls based on individual stocks, but rather on the value of your whole portfolio, you should have experience handling margin not just on individual stock movements but also on overall portfolio movements. For example, if 10% (by value) of the stocks you're targeting tend to have a correlation of -0.8 with the price of oil you should probably target another 10% (by value) in stocks that tend to have a correlation of +0.8 with the price of oil. And so on and so forth. That way your portfolio can weather big (or even small) changes in market conditions that would cause a margin call on a novice investor's portfolio." }, { "docid": "394066", "title": "", "text": "\"More perspective on whether buying the stock (\"\"going long\"\") or options are better. My other answer gave tantalizing results for the option route, even though I made up the numbers; but indeed, if you know EXACTLY when a move is going to happen, assuming a \"\"non-thin\"\" and orderly option market on a stock, then a call (or put) will almost of necessity produce exaggerated returns. There are still many, many catches (e.g. what if the move happens 2 days from now and the option expires in 1) so a universal pronouncement cannot be made of which is better. Consider this, though - reputedly, a huge number of airline stock options were traded in the week before 9/11/2001. Perversely, the \"\"investors\"\" (presumably with the foreknowledge of the events that would happen in the next couple of days) could score tremendous profits because they knew EXACTLY when a big stock price movement would happen, and knew with some certainty just what direction it would go :( It's probably going to be very rare that you know exactly when a security will move a substantial amount (3% is substantial) and exactly when it will happen, unless you trade on inside knowledge (which might lead to a prison sentence). AAR, I hope this provides some perspective on the magnitude of results above, and recognizing that such a fantastic outcome is rather unlikely :) Then consider Jack's answer above (his and all of them are good). In the LONG run - unless one has a price prediction gift smarter than the market at large, or has special knowledge - his insurance remark is apt.\"" }, { "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": "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": "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": "127743", "title": "", "text": "As many people here have pointed out, a CFD is a contract for difference. When you invest in stock at eToro, you buy a CFD reflecting a bid on the price movement of the underlying stock, however, you do not actually own the stock or hold any rights shareholders have. The counterparty to the CFD is eToro. When you close your position, eToro shall pay you the amount representing the difference between your buy and sell price for each stock. I suggest you read the following article about CFDs, it explains everything clearly and thoroughly: http://www.investopedia.com/articles/stocks/09/trade-a-cfd.asp#axzz2G9ZsmX3A As some of the responders have pointed out, and as is mentioned in the article, a broker can potentially misquote the prices of underlying assets in order to manipulate CFDs to their advantage. However, eToro is a highly reputable broker, with over 2 million active accounts, and we guarantee accurate stock quotes. Furthermore, eToro is regulated in Europe (Germany, UK, France, etc.) by institutions that exact strict regulations on the CFD trading sector, and we are obligated to comply with these regulations, which include accurate price quoting. And of course, CFD trading at eToro has tremendous benefits. Unlike a direct stock investment, eToro allows you to invest as much or as little as you like in your favorite stocks, even if the amount is less than the relevant stock price (i.e. fraction stocks). For example: if you invest $10 in Microsoft, and on the day of execution eToro’s average aggregated price was $30 after a spread of 0.1%, you will then have a CFD representing 0.33 stocks of Microsoft in your eToro account. In addition, with eToro you can invest in stock in the context of a social trading network, meaning that you can utilize the stock trading expertise of other trader to your advantage by following them, learning their strategies, and even copying their stock investments automatically. To put it briefly, you won’t be facing the stock market alone! Before you make a decision, I suggest that you try stock trading with an eToro demo account. A free demo account grants you access to all our instruments at real market rates, as well as access to our social network where you can view and participate in trader discussions about trading stocks with eToro, all without risking your hard earned money. Bottom line – it’s free, there are no strings attached, and you can get a much firmer idea of what trading stocks with eToro is like. If you have any further questions, please don’t hesitate to contact us through our site: www.etoro.com." }, { "docid": "467463", "title": "", "text": "Typically the settlement price for a financial instrument (such as AAPL stock) underlying a derivative contract is determined from the average price of trading in that instrument during some short time window specified by the exchange offering the derivative. (Read the fine print on your contract to learn the exact date and time of that settlement period.) Because it's in an exchange's best interest to appear as fair as possible, the exchange will in general pick a high-volume period of time -- such as the close of trading on the expiry date -- in which to determine the settlement price. Now, the expiry date/time may be different from the last time at which the option can be traded, which may be different from the underlying settlement time. For example, most US equity options currently expire on the Saturday following the third Friday of the month, whereas they can last be traded at end-of-day on the third Friday of the month, and the settlement period may be at a slightly different time on the third Friday of the month. (Again, read the contract to know for sure.) Moreover, your broker may demand to know whether you plan to exercise the option at an even earlier date/time. So, to answer your question: After-hours trading can only affect the settlement price of an underlying instrument if the exchange in question decides that the settlement period should happen during after-hours trading. But since no exchange that wants to stay in business would possibly do that, the answer is no. Contract expiry time, contract exercise time, final contract trading time, and underlying settlement time may all fall at different dates/times. The important one for your question is settlement time." }, { "docid": "61864", "title": "", "text": "\"What is being described in Longson's answer, though helpful, is perhaps more similar to a financial spread bet. Exactly like a bookmaker, the provider of a spread bet takes the other side of the bet, and is counter party to your \"\"trade\"\". A CFD is also a bet between two parties. Now, if the CFD provider uses a market maker model, then this is exactly the same as with a spread bet and the provider is the counter party. However, if the provider uses a direct market access model then the counter party to your contract is another CFD trader, and the provider is just acting as an intermediary to bring you together (basically doing the job of both a brokerage and an exchange). A CFD entered into through a direct market access provider is in many ways similar to a Futures contract. Critically though, the contract is traded 'over-the-counter' and not on any centralized and regulated exchange. This is the reason that CFDs are not permitted in the US - the providers are not authorized as exchanges. Whichever model your CFD provider uses, it is best to think of the contract as a 'bet' on the future price movements of the underlying stock or commodity, in much the same way as with any other derivative instrument such as futures, forwards, swaps, or options. Finally, note that because you don't actually own the underlying stock (just as Longson has highlighted) you won't be entitled to any of the additional benefits that can come with ownership of a stock, such as dividend payments or the right to attend shareholder meetings. RESPONSE TO QUESTION So if I understand correctly, the money gained through a direct market access model comes from other investors in the same CFD who happened to have invested in the \"\"wrong\"\" direction the asset was presumed to take. What happens then, if no one is betting in the opposite direction of my investment. Your understanding is correct. If literally nobody is betting in the opposite direction to you, then you will not be able to trade. This is true for any derivative market; if suddenly every single buyer were to remove their bids from the S&P futures, then no seller would be able to sell. This is a very extreme scenario, as the S&P futures market is incredibly liquid (loads of buyers and sellers at all times). However, if something like this does happen (the flash crash of 2010, for example), then the centralized futures exchanges such as the CME have safeguards in place - the market become locked-limit so that it can only fall so far, there may be no buyers below the lock limit price, but the market cannot fall through it. CFD providers are not obliged to provide such safeguards, which is why regulators in the US don't permit them to operate. It may be the case that if you're trying to buy a CFD for a thinly traded and ill-liquid stock there will be no seller available. One possibility is that the provider will offer a 'hybrid' model, and in the absence of an independent counter party they will take the opposite side of your bet, and then offset their risk by taking an opposing position in the underlying stock.\"" }, { "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": "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": "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": "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": "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": "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": "136363", "title": "", "text": "Since near-term at-the-money (ATM) options are generally the most liquid, the listed implied vol for a stock is usually pretty close to the nearest ATM volatility, but there's not a set convention that I'm aware of. Also note that for most stocks, vol skew (the difference in vol between away-from-the-money and at-the-money options) is relatively small, correct me if I'm wrong, IV is the markets assessment that the stock is about 70% likely (1 Standard Deviation) to move (in either direction) by that percent over the next year. Not exactly. It's an annualized standard deviation of the anticipated movements over the time period of the option that it's implied from. Implied vol for near-term options can be higher or lower than longer-term options, depending on if the market believes that there will be more uncertainty in the short-term. Also, it's the bounds of the expected movement in that time period. so if a stock is at $100 with an implied vol of 30% for 1-year term options, then the market thinks that the stock will be somewhere between $70 and $130 after 1 year. If you look at the implied vol for a 6-month term option, half of that vol is the range of expected movement in 6 months." }, { "docid": "226243", "title": "", "text": "\"The \"\"random walk\"\" that you describe reflects the nature of the information flow about the value of a stock. If the flow is just little bits of relatively unimportant information (including information about the broader market and the investor pool), you will get small and seemingly random moves, which may look like a meander. If an important bit of information comes out, like a merger, you will see a large and immediate move, which may not look as random. However, the idea that small moves are a meander of search and discovery and large moves are immediate agreements is incorrect. Both small moves and large moves are instantaneous agreements about the value of a stock in the form of a demand/supply equilibrium. As a rule, neither is predictable from the point of view of a single investor, but they are not actually random. They look different from each other only because of the size of the movement, not because of an underlying difference in how the consensus price is reached.\"" }, { "docid": "584633", "title": "", "text": "It seems that you're interested in an asset which you can hold that would go up when the gold price went down. It seems like a good place to start would be an index fund, which invests in the general stock market. When the gold market falls, this would mainly affect gold mining companies. These do not make up a sizable portion of any index fund, which is invested broadly in the market. Unfortunately, in order to act on this, you would also have to believe that the stock market was a good investment. To test this theory, I looked at an ETF index fund which tracks the S&P 500, and compared it to an ETF which invests in gold. I found that the daily price movements of the stock market were positively correlated with the price of gold. This result was statistically significant. The weekly price movements of the stock market were also correlated with the price of gold. This result was also statistically significant. When the holding period was stretched to one month, there was still a positive relationship between the stock market's price moves and the price of gold. This result was not statistically significant. When the holding period was stretched to one year, there was a negative relationship between the price changes in the stock market and the price of gold. This result was not statistically significant, either." }, { "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": "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": "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": "490584", "title": "", "text": "There are multiple factors at play that drive stock price movements, but one that can be visualized is that stocks can be priced relative to other (similar stocks). When one stock price goes up without fundamental changes (i.e. daily market noise/movements), it becomes slightly more expensive relative to it's peers. Opportunists will sell the now slightly more expensive stock, while others may buying the slightly cheaper (relatively) peer stock. Imagine millions of transactions like this happening throughout each hour, downward selling pressure on a stock that rises too fast in value relative to it's peers or the market, and upward buying pressure on stocks that are relatively cheaper than it's peers. It pushes two stocks towards an equilibrium that is directionally the same. Another way to think of it is lets say tomorrow there is $10B in net new dollars moved into buy orders for stocks that comes from net selling of bonds (this is also partly why bonds/stocks are generally inversely related). That money goes to buys stocks ABC, XYZ, EFG. As the price of those goes up with more buying pressure, stocks JKL, MNO, PQR are relatively a tad cheaper, so some money starts to flow into there. Repeat until you get a large majority of the stocks that buyers are willing to buy and you can see why stocks move in the same direction a lot of times." }, { "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.\"" }, { "docid": "188232", "title": "", "text": "\"Isn't it true that on the ex-dividend date, the price of the stock goes down roughly the amount of the dividend? That is, what you gain in dividend, you lose in price drop. Yes and No. It Depends! Generally stocks move up and down during the market, and become more volatile on some news. So One can't truly measure if the stock has gone down by the extent of dividend as one cannot isolate other factors for what is a normal share movement. There are time when the prices infact moves up. Now would it have moved more if there was no dividend is speculative. Secondly the dividends are very small percentage compared to the shares trading price. Generally even if 100% dividend are announced, they are on the share capital. On share prices dividends would be less than 1%. Hence it becomes more difficult to measure the movement of stock. Note if the dividend is greater than a said percentage, there are rules that give guidelines to factor this in options and other area etc. Lets not mix these exceptions. Why is everyone making a big deal out of the amount that companies pay in dividends then? Why do some people call themselves \"\"dividend investors\"\"? It doesn't seem to make much sense. There are some set of investors who are passive. i.e. they want to invest in good stock, but don't want to sell it; i.e. more like keep it for long time. At the same time they want some cash potentially to spend; similar to interest received on Bank Deposits. This class of share holders, it makes sense to invest into companies that give dividends, as year on year they keep receiving some money. If they on the other hand has invested into a company that does not give dividends, they would have to sell some units to get the same money back. This is the catch. They have to sell in whole units, there is brokerage, fees, etc, there are tax events. Some countries have taxes that are more friendly to dividends than capital gains. Thus its an individual choice whether to invest into companies that give good dividends or into companies that don't give dividends. Giving or not giving dividends does not make a company good or bad.\"" }, { "docid": "136363", "title": "", "text": "Since near-term at-the-money (ATM) options are generally the most liquid, the listed implied vol for a stock is usually pretty close to the nearest ATM volatility, but there's not a set convention that I'm aware of. Also note that for most stocks, vol skew (the difference in vol between away-from-the-money and at-the-money options) is relatively small, correct me if I'm wrong, IV is the markets assessment that the stock is about 70% likely (1 Standard Deviation) to move (in either direction) by that percent over the next year. Not exactly. It's an annualized standard deviation of the anticipated movements over the time period of the option that it's implied from. Implied vol for near-term options can be higher or lower than longer-term options, depending on if the market believes that there will be more uncertainty in the short-term. Also, it's the bounds of the expected movement in that time period. so if a stock is at $100 with an implied vol of 30% for 1-year term options, then the market thinks that the stock will be somewhere between $70 and $130 after 1 year. If you look at the implied vol for a 6-month term option, half of that vol is the range of expected movement in 6 months." }, { "docid": "226243", "title": "", "text": "\"The \"\"random walk\"\" that you describe reflects the nature of the information flow about the value of a stock. If the flow is just little bits of relatively unimportant information (including information about the broader market and the investor pool), you will get small and seemingly random moves, which may look like a meander. If an important bit of information comes out, like a merger, you will see a large and immediate move, which may not look as random. However, the idea that small moves are a meander of search and discovery and large moves are immediate agreements is incorrect. Both small moves and large moves are instantaneous agreements about the value of a stock in the form of a demand/supply equilibrium. As a rule, neither is predictable from the point of view of a single investor, but they are not actually random. They look different from each other only because of the size of the movement, not because of an underlying difference in how the consensus price is reached.\"" }, { "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": "584090", "title": "", "text": "An alternative options strategy to minimize loss of investment capital is to buy a put, near the money around your original buy price, with a premium less than the total dividend. The value of the put will increase if the stock price falls quickly. Likely, a large portion of your dividend will go towards paying the option premium, this will however ensure that your capital doesn't drop much lower than your buy price. Continued dividend distributions will continue to pay to buy future put options. Risks here are if the stock does not have a very large up or down movement from your original buy price causing most of the dividend to be spent on insuring your position. It may take a few cycles, but once the stock has appreciated in value say 10% above buying price, you can consider either skipping the put insurance so you can pocket the dividend, or you can bu ythe put with a higher strike price for additional insurance against a loss of gains. Again, this sacrifices much of the dividend in favor of price loss, and still is open to a risk of neutral price movement over time." }, { "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": "410123", "title": "", "text": "\"To add on to the other answers, in asking why funds have different price points one might be asking why stocks aren't normalized so a unit price of $196 in one stock can be directly compared to the same price in another stock. While this might not make sense with AAPL vs. GOOG (it would be like comparing apples to oranges, pun intended, not to mention how would two different companies ever come to such an agreement) it does seem like it would make more sense when tracking an index. And in fact less agreement between different funds would be required as some \"\"natural\"\" price points exist such as dividing by 100 (like some S&P funds do). However, there are a couple of reasons why two different funds might price their shares of the same underlying index differently. Demand - If there are a lot of people wanting the issue, more shares might be issued at a lower price. Or, there might be a lot of demand centered on a certain price range. Pricing - shares that are priced higher will find fewer buyers, because it makes it harder to buy round lots (100 shares at $100/share is $10,000 while at $10/share it's only $1000). While not everyone buys stock in lots, it's important if you do anything with (standardized) options on the stock because they are always acting on lots. In addition, even if you don't buy round lots a higher price makes it harder to buy in for a specific amount because each unit share has a greater chance to be further away from your target amount. Conversely, shares that are priced too low will also find fewer buyers, because some holders have minimum price requirements due to low price (e.g. penny) stocks tending to be more speculative and volatile. So, different funds tracking the same index might pick different price points to satisfy demand that is not being filled by other funds selling at a different price point.\"" }, { "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": "61170", "title": "", "text": "Concerning the Broker: eToro is authorized and registered in Cyprus by the Cyprus Securities Exchange Commission (CySEC). Although they are regulated by Cyprus law, many malicious online brokers have opened shop there because they seem to get along with the law while they rip off customers. Maybe this has changed in the last two years, personally i did not follow the developments. eToro USA is regulated by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and thus doing business in a good regulated environment. Of course the CFTC cannot see into the future, so some black sheep are getting fined and even their license revoked every now and then. It has no NFA Actions: http://www.nfa.futures.org/basicnet/Details.aspx?entityid=45NH%2b2Upfr0%3d Concerning the trade instrument: Please read the article that DumbCoder posted carefully and in full because it contains information you absolutely have to have if you are to do anything with Contract for difference (CFD). Basically, a CFD is an over the counter product (OTC) which means it is traded between two parties directly and not going through an exchange. Yes, there is additional risk compared to the stock itself, mainly: To trade a CFD, you sign a contract with your broker, which in almost all cases allows the broker A CFD is just a derivative financial instrument which allows speculating / investing in an asset without trading the actual asset itself. CFDs do not have to mirror the underlying asset's price and price movement and can basically have any price because the broker quotes you independently of the underlying. If you do not know how all this works and what the instrument / vehicle actually is and how it works; and do not know what to look for in a broker, please do not trade it. Do yourself a favor and get educated, inform yourself, because otherwise your money will be gone fast. Marketing campaigns such as this are targeted at people who do not have the knowledge required and thus lose a significant portion (most of the time all) of their deposits. Answer to the actual question: No, there is no better way. You can by the stock itself, or a derivative based on it. This means CFDs, options or futures. All of them require additional knowledge because they work differently than the stock. TL;DR: DumbCoder is absolutely right, do not do it if you do not know what it is about. EDIT: Revisiting this answer and reading the other answers, i realize this sounds like derivatives are bad in general. This is absolutely not the case, and i did not intend it to sound this way. I merely wanted to emphasize the point that without sufficient knowledge, trading such products is a great risk and in most cases, should be avoided." }, { "docid": "165246", "title": "", "text": "\"There is no fundamental, good reason, I think; \"\"that's just how it's done\"\" (which is what all the other answers seem to be saying, w/o coming out and admitting it). Just guessing, but I'll bet most of the reason is historical: Before up-to-the-moment quotes were readily available, that was a bit tedious to calculate/update the fund's value, so enacted-laws let it be done just once per day. (@NL7 quotes the security act of 1940, which certainly has been updated, but also still might contain the results of crufty rationales, like this.) There are genuinely different issues between funds and stocks, though: One share of a fund is fundamentally different from one share of stock: There is a finite supply of Company-X-stock, and people are trading that piece of ownership around, and barter to find an mutually-agreeable-price. But when you buy into a mutual-fund, the mutual-fund \"\"suddenly has more shares\"\" -- it takes your money and uses it to buy shares of the underlying stocks (in a ratio equal to its current holdings). As a consequence: the mutual fund's price isn't determined by two people bartering and agreeing on a price (like stock); there is exactly one sane way to price a mutual fund, and that's the weighted total of its underlying stock. If you wanted to sell your ownership-of-Mutual-Fund-Z to a friend at 2:34pm, there wouldn't be any bartering, you'd just calculate the value based on the stated-value of the underlying stock at that exact moment. So: there's no inherent reason you can't instantaneously price a mutual fund. BUT people don't really buy/sell funds to each other -- they go to the fund-manager and essentially make a deposit-or-withdraw. The fund-manager is only required by law to do it once a day (and perhaps even forbidden from doing it more often?), so that's all they do. [Disclaimer: I know very little about markets and finance. But I recognize answers that are 'just because'.]\"" }, { "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": "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": "467463", "title": "", "text": "Typically the settlement price for a financial instrument (such as AAPL stock) underlying a derivative contract is determined from the average price of trading in that instrument during some short time window specified by the exchange offering the derivative. (Read the fine print on your contract to learn the exact date and time of that settlement period.) Because it's in an exchange's best interest to appear as fair as possible, the exchange will in general pick a high-volume period of time -- such as the close of trading on the expiry date -- in which to determine the settlement price. Now, the expiry date/time may be different from the last time at which the option can be traded, which may be different from the underlying settlement time. For example, most US equity options currently expire on the Saturday following the third Friday of the month, whereas they can last be traded at end-of-day on the third Friday of the month, and the settlement period may be at a slightly different time on the third Friday of the month. (Again, read the contract to know for sure.) Moreover, your broker may demand to know whether you plan to exercise the option at an even earlier date/time. So, to answer your question: After-hours trading can only affect the settlement price of an underlying instrument if the exchange in question decides that the settlement period should happen during after-hours trading. But since no exchange that wants to stay in business would possibly do that, the answer is no. Contract expiry time, contract exercise time, final contract trading time, and underlying settlement time may all fall at different dates/times. The important one for your question is settlement time." }, { "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": "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": "316993", "title": "", "text": "Can't totally agree with that. Volatility trading is just one trading type of many. In my opinion it doesn't depend on whether you are a professional trader or not. As you might have heard, retail traders are said to create 'noise' on the market, mainly due to the fact that they aren't professional in their majority. So, I would assume, if an average retail trader decided to trade volatility he would create as much noise as if would have been betting on stock directions. Basically, most types of trading would require a considerable amount of effort spent on fundamental analysis of the underlying be it volatility or directional trading. Arbitrage trading would be an exception here, I guess. However, volatility trading relies more on trader's subjective expectations about future deviations, whereas trading stock directions requires deeper research of the underlying. Is it a drawback or an advantage? I.d.k. On the other hand-side volatility trading strategies cover both upward and downward movements, but you can set similar hedging strategies when going short or long on stocks, isn't it? To summarise, I think it is a matter of preference. Imagine yourself going long on S&P500 since 2009. Do you think there are many volatility traders who have outperformed that?" } ]

[ { "docid": "111768", "title": "", "text": "Option prices can predict the range of movement of the underlying, but not if the underlying is going up or down. An option price gives an implied volatility for an underlying . That IV number helps predict a range for the underlying price over the next few days,months, upto a year." } ]

[ { "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": "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": "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": "140835", "title": "", "text": "\"Private companies often \"\"make the market\"\" for their own stock. So they may offer to buy back so many shares a year, give staff the option to sell stock back after so many years, etc. But private companies can have their own restrictions. They can, for instance, forbid secondary trading or explicitly limit voting stock to family members. Ostensibly, someone could sell a big chunk of a company for whatever price they wanted (unless it was prohibited). For tax purposes, IRS will come after you if you get a bunch of value for less than you paid for. It is not an unheard of way to transfer wealth, but a dollar? Probably just gift it. But I'm not a tax attorney... But is absolutely not the same kind of price transparency, or price movement, that you see in public stock, you are correct. Larger private companies may have secondary markets that are still less transparent.\"" }, { "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": "61864", "title": "", "text": "\"What is being described in Longson's answer, though helpful, is perhaps more similar to a financial spread bet. Exactly like a bookmaker, the provider of a spread bet takes the other side of the bet, and is counter party to your \"\"trade\"\". A CFD is also a bet between two parties. Now, if the CFD provider uses a market maker model, then this is exactly the same as with a spread bet and the provider is the counter party. However, if the provider uses a direct market access model then the counter party to your contract is another CFD trader, and the provider is just acting as an intermediary to bring you together (basically doing the job of both a brokerage and an exchange). A CFD entered into through a direct market access provider is in many ways similar to a Futures contract. Critically though, the contract is traded 'over-the-counter' and not on any centralized and regulated exchange. This is the reason that CFDs are not permitted in the US - the providers are not authorized as exchanges. Whichever model your CFD provider uses, it is best to think of the contract as a 'bet' on the future price movements of the underlying stock or commodity, in much the same way as with any other derivative instrument such as futures, forwards, swaps, or options. Finally, note that because you don't actually own the underlying stock (just as Longson has highlighted) you won't be entitled to any of the additional benefits that can come with ownership of a stock, such as dividend payments or the right to attend shareholder meetings. RESPONSE TO QUESTION So if I understand correctly, the money gained through a direct market access model comes from other investors in the same CFD who happened to have invested in the \"\"wrong\"\" direction the asset was presumed to take. What happens then, if no one is betting in the opposite direction of my investment. Your understanding is correct. If literally nobody is betting in the opposite direction to you, then you will not be able to trade. This is true for any derivative market; if suddenly every single buyer were to remove their bids from the S&P futures, then no seller would be able to sell. This is a very extreme scenario, as the S&P futures market is incredibly liquid (loads of buyers and sellers at all times). However, if something like this does happen (the flash crash of 2010, for example), then the centralized futures exchanges such as the CME have safeguards in place - the market become locked-limit so that it can only fall so far, there may be no buyers below the lock limit price, but the market cannot fall through it. CFD providers are not obliged to provide such safeguards, which is why regulators in the US don't permit them to operate. It may be the case that if you're trying to buy a CFD for a thinly traded and ill-liquid stock there will be no seller available. One possibility is that the provider will offer a 'hybrid' model, and in the absence of an independent counter party they will take the opposite side of your bet, and then offset their risk by taking an opposing position in the underlying stock.\"" }, { "docid": "131989", "title": "", "text": "based on my understanding of your query...well you need to understand ATM and ITM options. The delta and gamma factor specifically. Usually delta of ATM is around 0.5 while ITM option is above than that say 0.6 or 0.8 or 0.9 and deep ITM is very close to 1. for every movement of 1 buck the ITM will move say 1.6, ATM 0.5 and OTM 0.3 approx Say a ABC stock price is Rs. 300 so if you check option chart you try to see which one is closer. Suppose you find strikeprice of 320 / 300 / 280. So 320 is ITM, 300 is ATM and 280 is OTM for call options. So will the delta value (e.g 0.66 / 0.55 / 0.35). So suppose if stock price rise by 7% i.e Rs. 321 then strikeprice will rise simultaneously. Say ATM CE300 is rs.10 it will start rising by 0.55 i.e. Rs.10.55. The moment the share price move from Rs.300 to Rs.320 your ATM will turn to ITM. Now the tricker part if you buy OTM and the share price rise by 15% your OTM will now become ITM and your profit will roll around 100% to 120% approx. Hope it answers your query" }, { "docid": "584633", "title": "", "text": "It seems that you're interested in an asset which you can hold that would go up when the gold price went down. It seems like a good place to start would be an index fund, which invests in the general stock market. When the gold market falls, this would mainly affect gold mining companies. These do not make up a sizable portion of any index fund, which is invested broadly in the market. Unfortunately, in order to act on this, you would also have to believe that the stock market was a good investment. To test this theory, I looked at an ETF index fund which tracks the S&P 500, and compared it to an ETF which invests in gold. I found that the daily price movements of the stock market were positively correlated with the price of gold. This result was statistically significant. The weekly price movements of the stock market were also correlated with the price of gold. This result was also statistically significant. When the holding period was stretched to one month, there was still a positive relationship between the stock market's price moves and the price of gold. This result was not statistically significant. When the holding period was stretched to one year, there was a negative relationship between the price changes in the stock market and the price of gold. This result was not statistically significant, either." }, { "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": "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": "490584", "title": "", "text": "There are multiple factors at play that drive stock price movements, but one that can be visualized is that stocks can be priced relative to other (similar stocks). When one stock price goes up without fundamental changes (i.e. daily market noise/movements), it becomes slightly more expensive relative to it's peers. Opportunists will sell the now slightly more expensive stock, while others may buying the slightly cheaper (relatively) peer stock. Imagine millions of transactions like this happening throughout each hour, downward selling pressure on a stock that rises too fast in value relative to it's peers or the market, and upward buying pressure on stocks that are relatively cheaper than it's peers. It pushes two stocks towards an equilibrium that is directionally the same. Another way to think of it is lets say tomorrow there is $10B in net new dollars moved into buy orders for stocks that comes from net selling of bonds (this is also partly why bonds/stocks are generally inversely related). That money goes to buys stocks ABC, XYZ, EFG. As the price of those goes up with more buying pressure, stocks JKL, MNO, PQR are relatively a tad cheaper, so some money starts to flow into there. Repeat until you get a large majority of the stocks that buyers are willing to buy and you can see why stocks move in the same direction a lot of times." }, { "docid": "473015", "title": "", "text": "\"First lets understand what convexity means: Convexity - convexity refers to non-linearities in a financial model. In other words, if the price of an underlying variable changes, the price of an output does not change linearly, but depends on the second derivative (or, loosely speaking, higher-order terms) of the modeling function. Geometrically, the model is no longer flat but curved, and the degree of curvature is called the convexity. Okay so for us idiots this means: if the price of ABC (we will call P) is determined by X and Y. Then if X decreases by 5 then the value of P might not necessarily decrease by 5 but instead is also dependent on Y (wtf$%#! 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": "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": "320787", "title": "", "text": "\"There is no good proxy for VIX, because it is a completely made-up value. Most listed options trade on an underlying security. I can therefore choose to buy either the stock, or a future or option on that stock. In this way, the future and option are derivatives in that they derive their value (in part) based on something else, in this case the stock price as of now. VIX is a different entity altogether. It is based on the volatility of the market, using \"\"market expectation of near term volatility conveyed by stock index option prices\"\". But the FAQ goes on to state that they are adding factors into the formula. So right away there is no one equity/stock that you can hold that will necessarily match the VIX in any significant way, because it is not directly based on stocks, but indirectly through other options and computations. In effect, therefore, the VIX in indeed only available through its options, and is not observable (tradable) in and of itself.\"" }, { "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": "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": "13260", "title": "", "text": "Options reflect expectations about the underlying asset, and options are commonly priced using the Black-Scholes model: N(d1) and N(d2) are probability functions, S is the spot (current) price of the asset, K is the strike price, r is the risk free rate, and T-t represents time to maturity. Without getting into the mathematics, it suffices to say that higher volatility or expectation of volatility increases the perceived riskiness of the asset, so call options are priced lower and put options are priced higher. Think about it intuitively. If the stock is more likely to go downwards, then there's an increased chance that the call option expires worthless, so call options must be priced lower to accommodate the relative change in expected value of the option. Puts are priced similarly, but they move inversely with respect to call option prices due to Put-Call parity. So if call option prices are falling, then put option prices are rising (Note, however, that call prices falling does not cause put prices to rise. The inverse relationship exists because of changes in the underlying factors and how pricing works.) So the option action signifies that the market believes the stock is headed lower (in the given time frame). That does not mean it will go lower, and option traders assume risk whenever they take a particular position. Bottom line: gotta do your own homework! Best of luck." }, { "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": "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": "387141", "title": "", "text": "Well, Taking a short position directly in real estate is impossible because it's not a fungible asset, so the only way to do it is to trade in its derivatives - Investment Fund Stock, indexes and commodities correlated to the real estate market (for example, materials related to construction). It's hard to find those because real estate funds usually don't issue securities and rely on investment made directly with them. Another factor should be that those who actually do have issued securities aren't usually popular enough for dealers and Market Makers to invest in it, who make it possible to take a short position in exchange for some spread. So what you can do is, you can go through all the existing real estate funds and find out if any of them has a broker that let's you short it, in other words which one of them has securities in the financial market you can buy or sell. One other option is looking for real estate/property derivatives, like this particular example. Personally, I would try to computationally find other securities that may in some way correlate with the real estate market, even if they look a bit far fetched to be related like commodities and stock from companies in construction and real estate management, etc. and trade those because these have in most of the cases more liquidity. Hope this answers your question!" } ]

[ { "docid": "497630", "title": "", "text": "Do you want a house? Sounds like you do. Did you think about what it will take to own a run a house? I am betting you have. Buying a home shouldn't be about an investment in anything other than you happiness and you sure seem conscientious and ready. Your worries are good ones, but don't forget about unemployment insurance, that as responsible people you can get another job. Do you have a life insurance policy? If you really really can't afford your payments, you can try to sell the house because you should have plenty of equity per your plans. Furthermore, chances are you will earn more in your paychecks over your lifetime. Think about what features you want, shop the market hard, take time and buy a house on reason rather than love. Don't you dare love the house until you buy it." }, { "docid": "499839", "title": "", "text": "Borrowing against your retirement is borrowing against your future -- you shouldn't do it expect for the most serious financial crises. The market is down, and 12% is a pretty darn good down payment. You'll hit the threshold where they waive PMI in a few years when you hit 80% LTV, or when you get the house appraised when the market heats up again. Another option is to find a lender that doesn't do PMI. A few local banks and credit unions do this... I managed to find one in my area that doesn't require PMI or escrowed tax/insurance!" }, { "docid": "146142", "title": "", "text": "You have currency risk either way. The only question is deal with it now or later. No one can tell you which action is better until we look at it in hindsight. You could hedge and move some now, some later. Invest your USD in US equities and move some to EUR and invest that in EUR companies. I'd suggest having your money in the same currency as where you are living, since for the most part, you'll be in the same boat as your peers and neighbors. If you have high inflation, so will your friends and neighbors and you won't feel so bad. And if your currency gets stronger, then so will the currency of the people you are hanging out with. It's similar to betting on Don't Pass in craps. If you bet against the rest of the table, you could win when they lose, but then all your friends will be sad and you'll be happy. And vice versa, when your friends are high-fiving, you'll be in the dumps. I'd say it's better to be in the same boat as your peers since that's usually how we judge our happiness when we compare our situation to others." }, { "docid": "576438", "title": "", "text": "&gt; will end up over taking instagram AND facebook in the next 5-10 years. holy shit LMAO I wish there was some way I could bet everything I own against this statement. Facebook will not be overtaken by ANY other social media company for the next 10+ years, and will NEVER be overtaken by snap inc. Facebook is actually the smartest long term investment out of everything you mentioned (and amazon as well). Snapchat and gopro are horrible long term holdings. Gopro will be worth half of what it is worth now in the next 5 years. The money you are bragging about is peanuts, and irrelevant. Because you were talking about long term holdings in your first reply, and now you are bringing up day trading which is a completely different story. Yes snap is probably good for some short term gains, but I dont see how you are parlaying that into thinking that is good for long term retirement funds. FWIW making money in this climate is easy as fuck, it wont be like this forever. And when the markets begin to crash, companies like twitter and snap inc who have no revenue will be the first ones to freefall to nothing. I have a 37% annual return since 2009 (entered the market a great time) and I have no background in investing before that. So dont get a big head about making correct choices in the short term." }, { "docid": "45583", "title": "", "text": "Coming to London at this point of time is not a wise decision, not that I mean to discourage you. The job market is quite competitive because loads of developers are in the markets, because of the layoffs. So be ready to wait for some time to land a role. Banks aren't recruiting that heavily, but that might change if the economy picks up. Regarding salaries, the contract rates you quote are primarily for banking sector jobs, some outside banking also pay those rates, but they are few. You can quote what you want to a recruiter, most contracts are through them as most managers have a fincancial get go between recruiters and themselves. Recruiters take their cut what they bill, 400+200(just a guess). So the more they take from the 400, better is their margin. So they try to decrease the 400 portion. But the important point is be ready to keep your chair warm for some time. I am not sure why you have to move to London. Keep your current job. Get a Skype number or something and get the calls diverted to your phone in Germany. You can come down to London for interviews and schedule them so you come in a week and give all your interviews. London is a costly place, you can find cheap places to stay too. But without a job and searching for one will get you depressed(been there and experienced it)" }, { "docid": "439404", "title": "", "text": "Whether it's wise or not depends on what you think and what you should consider are the risks both ways. What are the risks? For Let's say that the company produces great value and its current price and initial price are well below what it's worth. By investing some of your money in the company, you can take advantage of this value and capitalize off of it if the market recognizes this value too, or when the market does (if it's a successful company it will be a matter of when). Other reasons to be for it are that the tech industry is considered a solid industry and a lot of money is flowing into it. Therefore, if this assumption is correct, you may assume that your job is safe even if your investment doesn't pay off (meaning, you don't lose income, but your investment may not be a great move). Against Let's say that you dump a lot of money into your company and invest in the stock. You're being paid by the company, you're taking some of that money and investing it in the company, meaning that, depending on how much you make outside the company, you are increasing your risk of loss if something negative happens to the company (ie: it fails). Other reasons to be against it are just the opposite as above: due to the NSA, some analysts (like Mish, ZeroHedge, and others) think that the world will cut back on doing IT business with the United States, thus the tech industry will take a major hit over the next decade. In addition to that, Jesse Colombo (@TheBubbleBubble) on Twitter is predicting that there's another tech bubble and it will make a mess when it pops (to be fair to Colombo, he was one of analysts who predicted the housing bubble and his predictions on trading are often right). Finally, there is a risk of lost money and there is also a risk of lost opportunity. Looking at your past investments, which generally hurt more? That might give you a clue what to do." }, { "docid": "178306", "title": "", "text": "Possibly living beyond her means but I assume that was the business gross and 300K in Utah is not that great. I have no idea what the margin is in the plant nursery business or how many employee's she had but I bet her personal income was closer to 100K. Once people stopped buying plants to fix up their homes to flip it was all over for her I'm sure. The bigger problem is that this is playing out for millions of other people that relied on housing for an income from real estate sales people, loan brokers, builders, construction workers simply everything downstream of housing has been hit hard and many many people are in this same boat or soon will be. The really bad thing is there is no quick fix for all these people as housing is not coming back for years if not decades. So basically we have a whole segment of the economy that has been decimated and these people have no where to turn. It's not going to be pretty any way you look at it." }, { "docid": "204579", "title": "", "text": "With an appropriate selection within a 401K and if operating expenses are low, you get tax deferred savings and possibly a lower tax bracket for now. The returns vary of course with market fluctuations but for almost 3 years it has been double digit growth on average. Some health care sector funds were up over 40% last year. YMMV. With stocks and mutual funds that hold them, you also are in a sense betting that people want their corporations to grow and succeed. Others do most of the work. Real estate should be part of your savings strategy but understand that they are not kidding when they talk about location. It can lose value. Tenants tend to have some problem part of the year such that some owners find it necessary to have a paid property manager to buffer from their complaints. Other owners get hauled into court and sued as slum lords for allegedly not doing basics. Tenants can ruin your property as well. There is maintenance, repair, replacement, insurance against injury not just property damage, and property taxes. While some of it might be deductible, not all is. You may want to consider that there are considerable ongoing costs and significant risks in time and money with real estate as an investment at a level that you do not incur with a 401K. If you buy mainly to flip, then be aware that if there are unforeseen issues with the house or the market sours as it can, you could be stuck with an immovable drain on your income. If you lose your job could you make payments? Many, many people sadly lost their homes or investment properties that way in 2008-2010." }, { "docid": "242321", "title": "", "text": "It sounds like you plan to sell sooner or later. If your opinion is that there is still room for the housing market to grow, make your bet and sell later. The real estate market is much less liquid than other markets you might be invested in, so if you do end up seeing trouble (another housing crash) you may be stuck with your investment for longer than you hoped. I see more risk renting the house out, but I don't see significantly more reward. If you are comfortable with the risk, by all means proceed with your plan to rent. My opinion is contrary to many others here who think real estate investments are more desirable because the returns are less abstract (you can collect the rent directly from your tenants) but all investments are fraught with their own risks. If you like putting in a little sweat equity (doing your own repairs when things break at your rental) renting may be a good match for you. I prefer investments that don't require as much attention, and index funds certainly fit that bill for me." }, { "docid": "510219", "title": "", "text": "I recognize you are probably somewhere in the middle of various steps here... but I'd start and go through one-by-one in a disciplined way. That helps to cut through the overwhelming torrent of information that's out there. Here is my start at a general checklist: others can feel free to edit it or add their input. How 'much' house would you like to buy in terms of $$$ and bedrooms/sq ft. You can start pretty general here, but the idea is to figure out if you can actually afford a brand new 4bd/3ba 2,500 sq ft house (upwards of $500K in your neck of the woods according to trulia.com). Or maybe with your current resources you'll be looking at something like a townhome that is more entry-level but still yours. Some might recommend that this is a good time to talk to any significant others/whomevers and understand/manage expectations. My wife usually cares a lot about schools at this stage, but I think it's too early. Just ballpark whether you're looking at a $500K house, a $300K house, or a $200K townhome. How much house can you afford in terms of monthly payments only... (not considering other costs like utilities yet). Looking around at calculators like this one from bankrate.com can help you figure this out. Set the interest rate @ 5%, 30-year loan, and change the 'mortgage amount' until you have something that is about 80%-90% of what you currently pay in rent each month. I'll get to 'why' to undershoot your rent payment later. Crap... can't afford my dream house... If you don't have the down payment to make the numbers work (remember that this doesn't even include closing costs yet), there are other loan options like FHA loans that can go as low as about 5% down payment. The math would be the same but you replace 0.8 with 0.95. Then, look at your personal budget. Come up with general estimates of what you currently bring in and spend each month overall. Just ballpark it... Next, figure what you currently spend towards housing in particular. Whether you are paying for it or your landlord is paying for it, someone pays for a lot of different things for housing. For now, my list would include (1) Rent, (2) Mortgage Payment, (3) Electricity, (4) Gas, (5) Sewer, (6) Water, (7) Trash, (8) Other utilities... TV/Internet/Phone, (9) Property Insurance, (10) Renter's Insurance, and (11) Property Taxes. I would put it into a table in Excel somewhere that has 3 columns... The first has the labels, the second will have what you spend now, and the third will have what you might spend on each one as a homeowner. If you pay it now, put it in the second column. If your landlord pays it right now, leave it out as that's included in your rent payment. Obviously each cell won't be filled in. Fill in the rest of the third column. You won't pay rent anymore, but you will have a mortgage payment. You probably have a good estimate of any electricity bills, etc that you currently pay, but those may be slightly higher in a house vs. a condo or an apartment. As for things like sewer, water, trash or other 'community' utilities, my bet would be that your landlord pays for those. If you need a good estimate ask around with some co-workers or friends that own their own places. They would also be a good resource for property insurance estimates... shooting from the hip I would say about $100/month based on this website. (I'm not affiliated). The real 'ouch' is going to be property tax rates. Based on the data from this website, your county is about 9% of property value. So add that into the third column as well. Can you really afford a house? round 2 Now... add up the third column and see how that monthly expense amount on housing compares against your current monthly budget. If it's over, you don't have to give up, but you should just understand how much your decision to purchase a house will strain your budget. Also, you should use this information to look again at 'how much house can you afford.' Now, do some more research. If you need to get a revised loan amount based on the FHA loan decision, then use the bankrate calculator to find out what the monthly payment is for a 95% loan against your target price. But remember that an FHA loan will also carry PMI that is extra on top of your monthly payment. Or, if you need to revise your mortgage payment downwards (or upwards) change the loan amount accordingly. Once you've got the numbers set, look for properties that fit. This way you can have a meaningful discussion with yourself or other stakeholders about what you can afford. As far as arranging financing... a realtor will be able and willing to point you in the right direction for obtaining funding, etc. And at that point you can just check anything you're offered by shopping interest rates, etc against what the internet has to say. Feel free to ask us, too... it's hard to give much better direction without more specifics." }, { "docid": "372464", "title": "", "text": "From watching the hearings and reading the papers, it appears that JPMs London Office entered into a hedge-like position that was meant to hedge against a worldwide economic downturn. As far as I know, JPM corporate found this position on their own (probably alerted by the huge mark-to-market losses) and it was not found by some outside manager. That position itself was a hedge that turned out not to be a very good hedge, and upon this finding it was determined that JPM needed to exit this hedge. Unfortunately, the position had lost a substantial amount even by this point. This, according to Dimon, was because this particular group had been very successful in previous years and was not subject to the same regulations as most other groups. JPM has been very quiet about the details, because they don't need the position getting any more out of control than it already is. I assume some market participants have a good idea on what it is exactly, given its size, but I do not. It is not really like LTCM, which was not hedging and were supposed to be taking arbitrage positions in the market. It is also unlike LTCM is myriad ways (being 1 major position, $8B is not the same to JPM as to LTCM, JPM will almost 100% take the full loss, etc). I would recommend watching [this](http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/306502-102). Dimon clearly thinks the position was very unwise, and they are unwinding it, but details will be in short supply until JPM gets out of the position." }, { "docid": "10797", "title": "", "text": "A CFD is like a bet. Bookies don't own horses or racetracks but you still pay them and they pay you if the horses win. If you buy a CFD the money goes to the firm you bought it from and if the stock price changes in your favour, they will pay you. However, if it goes against you they may ask you for more money than you originally invested to cover your losses. Constacts for difference are derivatives, i.e. you gain on the change in the price or delta of something rather than on its absolute value. Someone bets one way and is matched with someone (or perhaps more than one) betting the other way. Both parties are bound by the contract to pay or be payed on the outcome. One will win and the other will necessarily lose. It's similar in concept to a spread bet, although spread bets often have a fixed timescale whereas CFDs do not and CFDs generally operate via the payment of a commission rather than via charges included in the spread. There's more information on both CFDs and spread betting here If somone has a lot of CFDs that might affect the stock price if it's known about as others may buy/sell real stock to either make the CFD pay or may it not pay depending on whether they think they can make money on it. Otherwise CFDs don't have much of an effect on stock prices." }, { "docid": "361884", "title": "", "text": "FTSE is an index catering to the London stock exchange. It is a Capitalization-Weighted Index of 100 companies listed on the London Stock Exchange with the highest market capitalization . When somebody says FTSE closed at 6440, it basically means at the end of the day, the index calculated using the day end market capitalization of the companies, included in the index, is 6440." }, { "docid": "257231", "title": "", "text": "\"I though that only some hedge funds operated that way and others were specific vehicles to provide an efficient hedge? This one is described as \"\"betting against chipmakers\"\" and is blaming a substantial loss against one market, so it can't be doing a great job of hedging itself. Though I think we're saying the same thing and just have a different view of the common meaning of \"\"hedge fund\"\".\"" }, { "docid": "255414", "title": "", "text": "Buying a house may save you money compared with renting, depending on the area and specifics of the transaction (including the purchase price, interest rates, comparable rent, etc.). In addition, buying a house may provide you with intangibles that fit your lifestyle goals (permanence in a community, ability to renovate, pride of ownership, etc.). These factors have been discussed in other answers here and in other questions. However there is one other way I think potential home buyers should consider the financial impact of home ownership: Buying a house provides you with a natural 'hedge' against possible future changes in your cost of living. Assume the following: If these two items are true, then buying a home allows you to guarantee today that your monthly living expenses will be mostly* fixed, as long as you live in that community. In 2 years, if there is an explosion of new residents in your community and housing costs skyrocket - doesn't affect you, your mortgage payment [or if you paid cash, the lack of mortgage payment] is fixed. In 3 years, if there are 20 new apartment buildings built beside you and housing costs plummet - doesn't affect you, your mortgage payment is fixed. If you know that you want to live in a particular place 20 years from now, then buying a house in that area today may be a way of ensuring that you can afford to live there in the future. *Remember that while your mortgage payment will be fixed, other costs of home ownership will be variable. See below. You may or may not save money compared with rent over the period you live in your house, but by putting your money into a house, you have protected yourself against catastrophic rent increases. What is the cost of hedging yourself against this risk? (A) The known costs of ownership [closing costs on purchase, mortgage interest, property tax, condo fees, home insurance, etc.]; (B) The unknown costs of ownership [annual and periodic maintenance, closing costs on a future sale, etc.]; (C) The potential earnings lost on your down payment / mortgage principal payments [whether it is low-risk interest or higher risk equity]; (D) You may have reduced savings for a long period of time which would limit your ability to cover emergencies (such as medical costs, unexpected unemployment, etc.) (E) You may have a reduced ability to look for a better job based on being locked into a particular location (though I have assumed above that you want to live in a particular community for an extended period of time, that desire may change); and (F) You can't reap the benefits of a rental market that decreases in real dollars, if that happens in your market over time. In short, purchasing a home should be a lifestyle-motivated decision. It financially reduces some the fluctuation in your long-term living costs, with the trade-off of committed principal dollars and additional ownership risks including limited mobility." }, { "docid": "356388", "title": "", "text": "\"Derivatives derive their value from underlying assets. This is expressed by the obligation of at least one counterparty to trade with the other counterparty in the future. These can take on as many combinations as one can dream up as it is a matter of contract. For futures, where two parties are obligated to trade at a specific price at a specific date in the future (one buyer, one seller), if you \"\"short\"\" a future, you have entered into a contract to sell the underlying at the time specified. If the price of the future moves against you (goes up), you will have to sell at a loss. The bigger the move, the greater the loss. You go ahead and pay this as well as a little extra to be sure that you satisfy what you owe due to the future. This satisfaction is called margin. If there weren't margin, people could take huge losses on their derivative bets, not pay, and disrupt the markets. Making sure that the money that will trade is already there makes the markets run smoothly. It's the same for shorting stocks where you borrow the stock, sell it, and wait. You have to leave the money with the broker as well as deposit a little extra to be sure you can make good if the market moves to a large degree against you.\"" }, { "docid": "253359", "title": "", "text": "In its most basic form, the losing trade, made by the bank’s chief investment office in London, was an intricate position that included a bullish bet on an index of investment-grade corporate debt. That was later combined with a bearish wager on high-yield securities. http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/06/28/jpmorgan-trading-loss-may-reach-9-billion/" }, { "docid": "560340", "title": "", "text": "It depends where you are going to live and how you are going to pay for your new accommodation. If you are moving within the UK and intend to buy another house you run into the problem that you will find it hard to get a second mortgage. If you rent out the house in Kent you will probably have to change the mortgage basis on it to a mortgage that allows for letting - normal residential mortgages exclude that entirely - which would allow you to take out a residential mortgage. It depends how much equity you have in the house. If most of the value of the house is mortgaged then you'll (1) find it hard to re mortgage on a commercial mortgage (2) may find it hard to cover the costs by letting and (3) are very sensitive to house prices falling. Also bear in mind that for the past three months in a row, house prices in the UK have mostly either stagnated or fallen... so you cannot guarantee any increase in value of the house in Kent. What I'm saying is ... there is no crystal ball that will tell you what's financially the best thing to do. Talk to estate agents, find out how much the house would sell for / how much it would rent for. Talk to your mortgage lender and find out if they will let you rent it out. Talk to other mortgage lenders and find out how much a commercial mortgage would cost. Do the sums, find out if renting the house would cover the costs, in which case you can gamble on the housing market continuing to rise. Don't rely on house prices continuing to rise as they have done before. Certainly where I live due to the number of new houses being built and other economic issues house prices have fallen appreciably over the past few months and may well continue to fall as more and more new houses come on the market." }, { "docid": "307155", "title": "", "text": "This is copying my own answer to another question, but this is definitely relevant for you: A bid is an offer to buy something on an order book, so for example you may post an offer to buy one share, at $5. An ask is an offer to sell something on an order book, at a set price. For example you may post an offer to sell shares at $6. A trade happens when there are bids/asks that overlap each other, or are at the same price, so there is always a spread of at least one of the smallest currency unit the exchange allows. Betting that the price of an asset will go down, traditionally by borrowing some of that asset and then selling it, hoping to buy it back at a lower price and pocket the difference (minus interest). Going long, as you may have guessed, is the opposite of going short. Instead of betting that the price will go down, you buy shares in the hope that the price will go up. So, let's say as per your example you borrow 100 shares of company 'X', expecting the price of them to go down. You take your shares to the market and sell them - you make a market sell order (a market 'ask'). This matches against a bid and you receive a price of $5 per share. Now, let's pretend that you change your mind and you think the price is going to go up, you instantly regret your decision. In order to pay back the shares, you now need to buy back your shares as $6 - which is the price off the ask offers on the order book. Similarly, the same is true in the reverse if you are going long. Because of this spread, you have lost money. You sold at a low price and bought at a high price, meaning it costs you more money to repay your borrowed shares. So, when you are shorting you need the spread to be as tight as possible." } ]

[ { "docid": "357739", "title": "", "text": "While I am not an advocate of shorting anything (unlimited downside, capped upside), you can:" } ]

[ { "docid": "376084", "title": "", "text": "I am going through this right now. We recently moved and learned the lesson of needing a good bit of wealth in easily accessible accounts. In our case for a down payment on a new house. So we have decided to increase our emergency fund to $50,000.00 minimum. Then throwing the rest in retirement accounts seems like a safe bet. So my rule of thumb is think of how much a 20% down payment would be on a new house if you needed to move. That way you can avoid pmi while also avoiding penalties for withdrawing from your retirement accounts." }, { "docid": "10797", "title": "", "text": "A CFD is like a bet. Bookies don't own horses or racetracks but you still pay them and they pay you if the horses win. If you buy a CFD the money goes to the firm you bought it from and if the stock price changes in your favour, they will pay you. However, if it goes against you they may ask you for more money than you originally invested to cover your losses. Constacts for difference are derivatives, i.e. you gain on the change in the price or delta of something rather than on its absolute value. Someone bets one way and is matched with someone (or perhaps more than one) betting the other way. Both parties are bound by the contract to pay or be payed on the outcome. One will win and the other will necessarily lose. It's similar in concept to a spread bet, although spread bets often have a fixed timescale whereas CFDs do not and CFDs generally operate via the payment of a commission rather than via charges included in the spread. There's more information on both CFDs and spread betting here If somone has a lot of CFDs that might affect the stock price if it's known about as others may buy/sell real stock to either make the CFD pay or may it not pay depending on whether they think they can make money on it. Otherwise CFDs don't have much of an effect on stock prices." }, { "docid": "194322", "title": "", "text": "tl;dr: Unfortunately, there is little available to the retail investor that fits your description. Institutional investors can use swaps to gain leverage on the above trade. A bank will build a basket of long MSFT and short SPY and then quote a rate against LIBOR (London Interbank Offered Rate) and a margin requirement. So at the end of the swap the bank will pay the difference in total return between MSFT and SPY and the investor will pay some amount of cash back. The nice thing for the investor is that the margin requirement will often be fairly small if their credit is good so the investor can lever the trade up significantly. A retail investor could call up your broker and try to get the above but on the off chance they let you the margin requirement might be higher than just going short the SPY. If you aren't a retail investor, you might be able to do something like be long a 3X tech ETF and short 3X SPY ETF. If you are very clever you might be able to combine multiple levered tech ETFs to get something like 3X MSFT. However, I would strongly caution against levered etfs for most retail investors as the fees are high and levered etfs tend to strongly drift away from the index against the investor over anything but the shortest time periods." }, { "docid": "599420", "title": "", "text": "A stopped clock is right two times a day. We may get a market crash similar to the financial crisis or the dot com crash or we may not. What if over the next 10 years rates rise very sluggishly, low inflation, and low growth more or less continues with maybe one brief and shallow recession. In that case I bet US stocks produce 4-5% returns per year and US bonds produce maybe 1-2% per year. European and emerging market stocks should have higher returns because they are in an earlier part of the cycle. I think your baseline has to look something like that. The last two crashes were caused by the tech bubble and the housing bubble - where is the bubble today? US stocks are expensive, but probably not in bubble territory. Bonds worldwide are unattractive with low or negative yields - negative yields maybe a bubble, but central banks will be the most hurt by negative rates and they are in a strong position to take the pain. There could be a crash I just don't see how we get there yet - maybe china?" }, { "docid": "353224", "title": "", "text": "\"Yes, you could sell what you have and bet against others that the stock price will continue to fall within a period of time \"\"Shorting\"\". If you're right, your value goes UP even though the stock price goes down. This is a pretty darn risky bet to make. If you're wrong, there's no limit to how much money you can owe. At least with stocks they can only fall to zero! When you short, and the price goes up and up and up (before the deadline) you owe it! And just as with stocks, someone else has to agree to take the bet. If a stock is pretty obviously tanking, its unlikely that someone would oppose your bet. (It's probably pretty clear that I barely know what I'm talking about, but I was surprised not to see this listed among the answers.)\"" }, { "docid": "338606", "title": "", "text": "Before doing anything else: you want a lawyer involved right from the beginning, to make sure that something reasonable happens with the house if one of you dies or leaves. Seriously, you'll both be safer and happier if it's all explicit. How much you should put on the house is not the right question. Houses don't sell instantly, and while you can access some of their stored value by borrowing against them that too can take some time to arrange. You need to have enough operating capital for normal finances, plus an emergency reserve to cover unexpectedly being out of work or sudden medical expenses. There are suggestions for how much that should be in answers to other questions. After that, the question is whether you should really be buying a house at all. It isn't always a better option than renting and (again as discussed in answers to other questions) there are ongoing costs in time and upkeep and taxes and insurance. If you're just thinking about the financials, it may be better to continue to rent and to invest the savings in the market. The time to buy a house is when you have the money and a reliable income, plan not to move for at least five years, really want the advantages of more elbow room and the freedom to alter the place to suit your needs (which will absorb more money)... As far as how much to put down vs. finance: you really want a down payment of at least 20%. Anything less than that, and the bank will insist you pay for mortgage insurance, which is a significant expense. Whether you want to pay more than that out of your savings depends on how low an interest rate you can get (this is a good time in that regard) versus how much return you are getting on your investments, combined with how long you want the mortgage to run and how large a mortgage payment you're comfortable committing to. If you've got a good investment plan in progress and can get a mortgage which charges a lower interest rate than your investments can reasonably be expected to pay you, putting less down and taking a larger mortgage is one of the safer forms of leveraged investing... IF you're comfortable with that. If the larger mortgage hanging over you is going to make you uncomfortable, this might not be a good answer for you. It's a judgement call. I waited until i'd been in out of school about 25 years before I was ready to buy a house. Since i'd been careful with my money over that time, I had enough in investments that I could have bought the house for cash. Or I could have gone the other way and financed 80% of it for maximum leverage. I decided that what I was comfortable with was financing 50%. You'll have to work thru the numbers and decide what you are comfortable with. But I say again, if buying shared property you need a lawyer involved. It may be absolutely the right thing to do ... but you want to make sure everything is fully spelled out... and you'll also want appropriate terms written into your wills. (Being married would carry some automatic assumptions about joint ownership and survivor rights... but even then it's safer to make it all explicit.) Edit: Yes, making a larger down payment may let you negotiate a lower interest rate on the loan. You'll have to find out what each bank is willing to offer you, or work with a mortgage broker who can explore those options for you." }, { "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": "301224", "title": "", "text": "If you are looking to invest for 1-2 years I would suggest you not invest in mutual funds at all. Your time horizon is too short for it to be smart to invest in the stock market. I'd suggest a high-yield savings account or CD. I know they both have crappy returns, but the stock market can swing wildly with no notice. If you are ready to buy your house and the market is down 50% (it has happened multiple times in history) are you going to have to put off buying your home for an indefinite amount of time waiting to them to recover? If you are absolutely committed to investing in a mutual fund anyway against my advise I'd suggest an indexed fund that contains mostly blue chip stocks (indexed against the DOW)." }, { "docid": "560340", "title": "", "text": "It depends where you are going to live and how you are going to pay for your new accommodation. If you are moving within the UK and intend to buy another house you run into the problem that you will find it hard to get a second mortgage. If you rent out the house in Kent you will probably have to change the mortgage basis on it to a mortgage that allows for letting - normal residential mortgages exclude that entirely - which would allow you to take out a residential mortgage. It depends how much equity you have in the house. If most of the value of the house is mortgaged then you'll (1) find it hard to re mortgage on a commercial mortgage (2) may find it hard to cover the costs by letting and (3) are very sensitive to house prices falling. Also bear in mind that for the past three months in a row, house prices in the UK have mostly either stagnated or fallen... so you cannot guarantee any increase in value of the house in Kent. What I'm saying is ... there is no crystal ball that will tell you what's financially the best thing to do. Talk to estate agents, find out how much the house would sell for / how much it would rent for. Talk to your mortgage lender and find out if they will let you rent it out. Talk to other mortgage lenders and find out how much a commercial mortgage would cost. Do the sums, find out if renting the house would cover the costs, in which case you can gamble on the housing market continuing to rise. Don't rely on house prices continuing to rise as they have done before. Certainly where I live due to the number of new houses being built and other economic issues house prices have fallen appreciably over the past few months and may well continue to fall as more and more new houses come on the market." }, { "docid": "255414", "title": "", "text": "Buying a house may save you money compared with renting, depending on the area and specifics of the transaction (including the purchase price, interest rates, comparable rent, etc.). In addition, buying a house may provide you with intangibles that fit your lifestyle goals (permanence in a community, ability to renovate, pride of ownership, etc.). These factors have been discussed in other answers here and in other questions. However there is one other way I think potential home buyers should consider the financial impact of home ownership: Buying a house provides you with a natural 'hedge' against possible future changes in your cost of living. Assume the following: If these two items are true, then buying a home allows you to guarantee today that your monthly living expenses will be mostly* fixed, as long as you live in that community. In 2 years, if there is an explosion of new residents in your community and housing costs skyrocket - doesn't affect you, your mortgage payment [or if you paid cash, the lack of mortgage payment] is fixed. In 3 years, if there are 20 new apartment buildings built beside you and housing costs plummet - doesn't affect you, your mortgage payment is fixed. If you know that you want to live in a particular place 20 years from now, then buying a house in that area today may be a way of ensuring that you can afford to live there in the future. *Remember that while your mortgage payment will be fixed, other costs of home ownership will be variable. See below. You may or may not save money compared with rent over the period you live in your house, but by putting your money into a house, you have protected yourself against catastrophic rent increases. What is the cost of hedging yourself against this risk? (A) The known costs of ownership [closing costs on purchase, mortgage interest, property tax, condo fees, home insurance, etc.]; (B) The unknown costs of ownership [annual and periodic maintenance, closing costs on a future sale, etc.]; (C) The potential earnings lost on your down payment / mortgage principal payments [whether it is low-risk interest or higher risk equity]; (D) You may have reduced savings for a long period of time which would limit your ability to cover emergencies (such as medical costs, unexpected unemployment, etc.) (E) You may have a reduced ability to look for a better job based on being locked into a particular location (though I have assumed above that you want to live in a particular community for an extended period of time, that desire may change); and (F) You can't reap the benefits of a rental market that decreases in real dollars, if that happens in your market over time. In short, purchasing a home should be a lifestyle-motivated decision. It financially reduces some the fluctuation in your long-term living costs, with the trade-off of committed principal dollars and additional ownership risks including limited mobility." }, { "docid": "242321", "title": "", "text": "It sounds like you plan to sell sooner or later. If your opinion is that there is still room for the housing market to grow, make your bet and sell later. The real estate market is much less liquid than other markets you might be invested in, so if you do end up seeing trouble (another housing crash) you may be stuck with your investment for longer than you hoped. I see more risk renting the house out, but I don't see significantly more reward. If you are comfortable with the risk, by all means proceed with your plan to rent. My opinion is contrary to many others here who think real estate investments are more desirable because the returns are less abstract (you can collect the rent directly from your tenants) but all investments are fraught with their own risks. If you like putting in a little sweat equity (doing your own repairs when things break at your rental) renting may be a good match for you. I prefer investments that don't require as much attention, and index funds certainly fit that bill for me." }, { "docid": "225682", "title": "", "text": "\"No. Rural Scotland has exactly the same monetary system, and not the same bubble. Monaco (the other example given) doesn't even have its own monetary system but uses the Euro. Look instead to the common factor: a lot of demand for limited real estate. Turning towards the personal finance part of it, we know from experience that housing bubbles may \"\"burst\"\" and housing prices may drop suddenly by ~30%, sometimes more. This is a financial risk if you must sell. Yet on the other hand, the fundamental force that keeps prices in London higher than average isn't going away. The long-term risk often is manageable. A 30% drop isn't so bad if you own a house for 30 years.\"" }, { "docid": "439404", "title": "", "text": "Whether it's wise or not depends on what you think and what you should consider are the risks both ways. What are the risks? For Let's say that the company produces great value and its current price and initial price are well below what it's worth. By investing some of your money in the company, you can take advantage of this value and capitalize off of it if the market recognizes this value too, or when the market does (if it's a successful company it will be a matter of when). Other reasons to be for it are that the tech industry is considered a solid industry and a lot of money is flowing into it. Therefore, if this assumption is correct, you may assume that your job is safe even if your investment doesn't pay off (meaning, you don't lose income, but your investment may not be a great move). Against Let's say that you dump a lot of money into your company and invest in the stock. You're being paid by the company, you're taking some of that money and investing it in the company, meaning that, depending on how much you make outside the company, you are increasing your risk of loss if something negative happens to the company (ie: it fails). Other reasons to be against it are just the opposite as above: due to the NSA, some analysts (like Mish, ZeroHedge, and others) think that the world will cut back on doing IT business with the United States, thus the tech industry will take a major hit over the next decade. In addition to that, Jesse Colombo (@TheBubbleBubble) on Twitter is predicting that there's another tech bubble and it will make a mess when it pops (to be fair to Colombo, he was one of analysts who predicted the housing bubble and his predictions on trading are often right). Finally, there is a risk of lost money and there is also a risk of lost opportunity. Looking at your past investments, which generally hurt more? That might give you a clue what to do." }, { "docid": "576632", "title": "", "text": "\"If I really understood it, you bet that a quote/currency/stock market/anything will rise or fall within a period of time. So, what is the relationship with trading ? I see no trading at all since I don't buy or sell quotes. You are not betting as in \"\"betting on the outcome of an horse race\"\" where the money of the participants is redistributed to the winners of the bet. You are betting on the price movement of a security. To do that you have to buy/sell the option that will give you the profit or the loss. In your case, you would be buying or selling an option, which is a financial contract. That's trading. Then, since anyone should have the same technic (call when a currency rises and put when it falls)[...] How can you know what will be the future rate of exchange of currencies? It's not because the price went up for the last minutes/hours/days/months/years that it will continue like that. Because of that everyone won't have the same strategy. Also, not everyone is using currencies to speculate, there are firms with real needs that affect the market too, like importers and exporters, they will use financial products to protect themselves from Forex rates, not to make profits from them. [...] how the brokers (websites) can make money ? The broker (or bank) will either: I'm really afraid to bet because I think that they can bankrupt at any time! Are my fears correct ? There is always a probability that a company can go bankrupt. But that's can be very low probability. Brokers are usually not taking risks and are just being intermediaries in financial transactions (but sometime their computer systems have troubles.....), thanks to that, they are not likely to go bankrupt you after you buy your option. Also, they are regulated to insure that they are solid. Last thing, if you fear losing money, don't trade. If you do trade, only play with money you can afford to lose as you are likely to lose some (maybe all) money in the process.\"" }, { "docid": "546187", "title": "", "text": "\"If I have a house that its market value went from $100k to $140k can I get HELOC $40K? Maybe - the amount that you can borrow depends on the market value of the house, so if you already have $100k borrowed against it, it will be tough to borrow another $40k without paying a higher interest rate, since there is a real risk that the value will decrease and you will be underwater. Can I again ask for HELOC after I finish the renovation in order to do more renovation and maybe try to end up renovating the house so its value raises up to $500k? I doubt you can just \"\"renovate\"\" a house and increase its market value from $140k to $500K. Much of a house's value is determined by its location, and you can quickly outgrow a neighborhood. If you put $360k in improvements in a neighborhood where other homes are selling for $140k you will not realize nearly that amount in actual market value. People that buy $500k houses generally want to be in an area where other homes are worth around the same amount. If you want to to a major renovation (such as an addition) I would instead shop around for a Home Improvement Loan. The main difference is that you can use the expected value of the house after improvements to determine the loan balance, instead of using the current value. Once the renovations are complete, you roll it and the existing mortgage into a new mortgage, which will likely be cheaper than a mortgage + HELOC. The problem is that the cost of the improvements is generally more than the increase in market value. It also helps you make a wise decision, versus taking out a $40k HELOC and spending it all on renovations, only to find out that the increase in market value is only $10k and you're now underwater. So in your case, talk to a contractor to plan out what you want to do, which will tell you how much it will cost. Then talk to a realtor to determine what the market value with those improvements will be, which will tell you how much you can borrow. It's highly likely that you will need to pay some out-of-pocket to make up the difference, but it depends on what the improvements are and what comparable homes sell for.\"" }, { "docid": "559612", "title": "", "text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/australian-economy/issuing-new-loans-against-unrealised-capital-gains-has-created-an-australian-house-of-cards/news-story/853e540ce0a8ed95d5881a730b6ed2c9) reduced by 87%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; THE Australian mortgage market has &amp;quot;Ballooned&amp;quot; due to banks issuing new loans against unrealised capital gains of existing investment properties, creating a $1.7 trillion &amp;quot;House of cards&amp;quot;, a new report warns. &gt; The report describes the system as a &amp;quot;Classic mortgage Ponzi finance model&amp;quot;, with newly purchased properties often generating net rental income losses, adversely impacting upon cash flows. &gt; Melbourne&amp;#039;s median house price has risen by 12.7 per cent over the past year to $695,500, with Brisbane up 3 per cent to $488,757, Adelaide 5.2 per cent to $430,109, Hobart 13.6 per cent to $383,438 and Canberra 12.9 per cent to $575,173. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6z9ea1/issuing_new_loans_against_unrealised_capital/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~207582 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*: **property**^#1 **per**^#2 **cent**^#3 **report**^#4 **market**^#5\"" }, { "docid": "307155", "title": "", "text": "This is copying my own answer to another question, but this is definitely relevant for you: A bid is an offer to buy something on an order book, so for example you may post an offer to buy one share, at $5. An ask is an offer to sell something on an order book, at a set price. For example you may post an offer to sell shares at $6. A trade happens when there are bids/asks that overlap each other, or are at the same price, so there is always a spread of at least one of the smallest currency unit the exchange allows. Betting that the price of an asset will go down, traditionally by borrowing some of that asset and then selling it, hoping to buy it back at a lower price and pocket the difference (minus interest). Going long, as you may have guessed, is the opposite of going short. Instead of betting that the price will go down, you buy shares in the hope that the price will go up. So, let's say as per your example you borrow 100 shares of company 'X', expecting the price of them to go down. You take your shares to the market and sell them - you make a market sell order (a market 'ask'). This matches against a bid and you receive a price of $5 per share. Now, let's pretend that you change your mind and you think the price is going to go up, you instantly regret your decision. In order to pay back the shares, you now need to buy back your shares as $6 - which is the price off the ask offers on the order book. Similarly, the same is true in the reverse if you are going long. Because of this spread, you have lost money. You sold at a low price and bought at a high price, meaning it costs you more money to repay your borrowed shares. So, when you are shorting you need the spread to be as tight as possible." }, { "docid": "5152", "title": "", "text": "Essentially, what you're describing is a leveraged investment. As others noted, the question is how confident you can be that (a) the returns on the investment will exceed what you're paying in interest, and (b) that if you lose the bet you'll still be able to pay off the loan without severely injuring yourself. I did essentially this when I bought my house, taking out a larger loan than necessary and leaving more money in my investments, which had been returning more than the mortgage's interest rate. I then got indecently lucky during the recession and was able to refinance down to under 4%, which I am very certain my investment will beat. I actually considered lengthening the term of the loan for that reason, or borrowing a bit more, but decided not to double down on the bet; that was my own risk-comfort threshold. Know exactly what your risks are, including secondary effects of these risks. Run the numbers to see what the likely return is. Decide whether you like the odds enough to go for it." }, { "docid": "587514", "title": "", "text": "You should be aware that many pubs in the London (indeed, the UK as a whole) are sold as a leasehold with a beer tie. This typically means you pay less rent for the building and premises, but must enter a contract with the Pub Company to buy their beer and day-to-day supplies. You have the legal option to instead pay market rent for some (but not all) Pub Cos, under certain conditions. If you go with leasehold, the landlord can usually close your pub at their will. This is becoming a quite common occurrence in the booming real estate market of London. While your interest will be in running a pub, the Pub Co's interest will be in getting change of use planning permission and selling it to a real estate developer." } ]

[ { "docid": "526073", "title": "", "text": "Publicly traded companies perform dilution via an FPO (Follow-up Public Offer). It is a process similar to IPO, with announcements, prospectus, etc. You will know ahead of time when that happen. Stocks traded OTC are not required to file a lot of regulatory documents that publicly traded stocks are required to file, and may not disclose dilutions or additional issues. By buying OTC you agree to these terms. You will probably get a notice and a chance to vote on that in your proxy statement, but that happens when you already own the stock." } ]

[ { "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": "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": "457702", "title": "", "text": "\"The Financial Consumer Agency of Canada (FCAC) has a page specifically about working with a financial planner or advisor. It's a good starting point if you are thinking about getting a financial professional to help you plan and manage your investments. In the \"\"Where To Look\"\" section on that page, FCAC refers to a handful of industry associations. I'll specifically highlight the Financial Planning Standards Council's \"\"Find a planner\"\" page, which can help you locate a Certified Financial Planner (CFP). Choose financial advice carefully. Prefer certified professionals who charge a set fee for service over advisors who work on commission to push investment products. Commission-based advice is seldom unbiased. MoneySense magazine published a listing last year for where to find a fee-only financial planner, calling it \"\"The most comprehensive listing of Canadian fee-only financial planners on the web\"\" — but do note the caveat (near the bottom of the page) that the individuals & firms have not been screened. Do your own due diligence and check references.\"" }, { "docid": "31", "title": "", "text": "So nothing preventing false ratings besides additional scrutiny from the market/investors, but there are some newer controls in place to prevent institutions from using them. Under the DFA banks can no longer solely rely on credit ratings as due diligence to buy a financial instrument, so that's a plus. The intent being that if financial institutions do their own leg work then *maybe* they'll figure out that a certain CDO is garbage or not. Edit: lead in" }, { "docid": "128338", "title": "", "text": "\"I was thinking more of a limit on the TOTAL # of patents (something fairly small, like maybe 10,000 total patents are allowed to be valid at any given moment in time), so that patent applications from multiple sources have to be somehow compared with each other to decide which would provide more societal-benefit by being allowed patent status. If you want to take the government (mostly) out of the picture, then maybe use an auction format - when a valid patent \"\"slot\"\" becomes available (due to a previously-granted patent expiring, or being invalidated due to court challenge), then anyone who wants their idea to get patent rights submits their application to an \"\"auction\"\" for that slot. Then the people who want to OWN the patent rights to any of those submitted ideas will bid for them. Whoever pays the top bid will get the patent rights for the concepts in the specific application they were targeting. This will force the people who are doing the bidding to basically do the \"\"due diligence\"\" on each patent application (instead of depending on the patent examiners), since they will not want to pay a lot of money to get the patent rights for an idea, only to have that patent's value be destroyed by being declared invalid in court. If you want to encourage small inventors to throw their hat into the ring, then set things up so that the money from the winning bid goes to the inventor who submitted the original application. This way, you get the best of both worlds - the inventor gets compensated (handsomely in most cases) for their good idea, and the idea being patented gets into the hands of someone with enough resources to exploit the idea in a broad scale.\"" }, { "docid": "519390", "title": "", "text": "\"Wouldn't this be part of your investing strategy to know what price is considered a \"\"good\"\" price for the stock? If you are going to invest in company ABC, shouldn't you have some idea of whether the stock price of $30, $60, or $100 is the bargain price you want? I'd consider this part of the due diligence if you are picking individual stocks. Mutual funds can be a bit different in automatically doing fractional shares and not quite as easy to analyze as a company's financials in a sense. I'm more concerned with the fact that you don't seem to have a good idea of what the price is that you are willing to buy the stock so that you take advantage of the volatility of the market. ETFs would be similar to mutual funds in some ways though I'd probably consider the question that may be worth considering here is how much do you want to optimize the price you pay versus adding $x to your position each time. I'd probably consider estimating a ballpark and then setting the limit price somewhere within that. I wouldn't necessarily set it to the maximum price you'd be willing to pay unless you are trying to ride a \"\"hot\"\" ETF using some kind of momentum strategy. The downside of a momentum strategy is that it can take a while to work out the kinks and I don't use one though I do remember a columnist from MSN Money that did that kind of trading regularly.\"" }, { "docid": "506277", "title": "", "text": "There seems to be a disconnect between brands and channels in which brands advertise. While I see and agree the point of the article, it treats all media channels as equal, where there are clear differences between them and as an extension the level of confidence given to a brand as a result. The author does focuses on the millennials as a target group that is less receptive to advertising, but neglects to take into account the sheer volume of advertising that is around us - compared to ten or even twenty years ago - the increase has been exponential. Today it’s almost impossible to even go to even a family without having it sponsored by your local dentist, real estate agent and pizza chain. The fact that millennial are performing more due diligence is not just a reflection on the group as a whole, but speaks volumes of the sheer quantity of (many low quality) options of media and advertising we come across on a daily basis." }, { "docid": "121100", "title": "", "text": "Some qualitative factors to consider when deciding whether to finance with equity vs debt (for a publicly traded company): 1) The case for equity: Is the stock trading high relative to what management believes is its intrinsic value? If so, raising equity may be attractive since management would be raising a lot of $$$, but the downside is you give up future earnings since you are diluting current ownership 2) The case for debt: What is the expected return for the project in which the raised capital will be utilized for? Is its expected return higher than the interest payments (in % terms)? If so raising debt would be more attractive than raising equity since current ownership would not be diluted That's all I can think of off the top of my head right now, I'm sure there are a few more qualitative factors to consider but I think these two are the most intuitive" }, { "docid": "204478", "title": "", "text": "\"I'm not a financial expert... In my opinion it might be best to have as much in savings (aka being liquid and the funds are insured by the FDIC) as possible for a couple of reasons. If you lose your job, your equity line could then get frozen if the bank finds out. What you want to avoid is only owing 20 grand on your home (because you paid a chunk off with your savings) but because you lost your job you can't take any money out of your home and suddenly you are equity rich, cash poor, and jobless, that is a potential for big trouble. I'm curious why you borrowed on the Heloc since you seem to have a significant amount in savings anyways. What you really might want to look into is lowering your mortgage interest rate to around 3.5% I would use the credit card debt as a reality check. Make sure every month you are making at least a 10% to 15% of the total due payment. This dilutes the interest rate charge and lets you see the true \"\"drag\"\" credit card debt payments really have on your life. I don't know this for sure but the higher amount credit card payments you make probably reflects well on your credit score, and of course, never be late with the credit card payments either.\"" }, { "docid": "258973", "title": "", "text": "You can calculate the fully diluted shares by comparing EPS vs diluted (adjusted) EPS as reported in 10K. I don't believe they report the number directly, but it is a trivial math exercise to reach it. The do report outstanding common stock (basis for EPS)." }, { "docid": "43310", "title": "", "text": "(/u/what_comes_after_q &amp; /u/md___2020 - I thought you might appreciate this too). While GE lost it's financial discipline in the 2000s, in the '90s and '80s GE was a supreme integrator of acquired businesses. [Here is a 1998 Harvard Business Review case study on GE.](https://hbr.org/1998/01/making-the-deal-real-how-ge-capital-integrates-acquisitions) &gt; Lesson 1: Acquisition integration is not a discrete phase of a deal and does not begin when the documents are signed. Rather, it is a process that begins with due diligence and runs through the ongoing management of the new enterprise. &gt; Lesson 2: Integration management is a full-time job and needs to be recognized as a distinct business function, just like operations, marketing, or finance. &gt; Lesson 3: Decisions about management structure, key roles, reporting relationships, layoffs, restructuring, and other career-affecting aspects of the integration should be made, announced, and implemented as soon as possible after the deal is signed—within days, if possible. Creeping changes, uncertainty, and anxiety that last for months are debilitating and immediately start to drain value from an acquisition. &gt; Lesson 4: A successful integration melds not only the various technical aspects of the businesses but also the different cultures. The best way to do so is to get people working together quickly to solve business problems and accomplish results that could not have been achieved before." }, { "docid": "445314", "title": "", "text": "\"This is definitely a scam. My husband was inquiring with a \"\"company\"\" that was offering him to be. Representative for them. He got the same job details but the company was called Ceneo. I did due diligence and found that the real Ceneo has no problems receiving money directly from buyers around the world. The fake company mirrored their website, posted jobs on the net,hoping to \"\"employ\"\" unsuspecting people in the U.S. This is their reply to my husband when he asked the job details. DO NOT GET SCAMMED and held accountable for money laundering.\"" }, { "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": "177912", "title": "", "text": "It would seem that you are in a position where you are able to save money and you hope to have your money work for you. From your statement above, it is implied that you are a professional with a steady income not related to the finance field. With that said, it is better to diversify your portfolio and have your money work for you through passive investments rather than an active one, where you actively search for companies that are below market price. That research takes time and much more experience in order to properly execute. Now, if your overall goal is to trade actively, then maybe researching individual companies might be the best way to get your feet wet. But, if your goal is to create a diversified portfolio and make your money work for you, then passive is the way to go. Two passive financial Vehicles: Mutual funds and ETFs. Depending on what you are hoping to accomplish in the future, an ETF or a mutual fund will likely suite your situation. I would encourage you to do your due diligence and find out the weakness and strength of each. From there you are able to make an informed decision." }, { "docid": "274875", "title": "", "text": "I think the OP took responsibility for their mistakes by walking away from their mortgage and living life with in their means. If it screws the bank, so be it, because the bank failed in its responsibility to do due diligence, whether that means figuring out if their mortgagee can pay over the life of the loan and/or if the housing market is a bubble. And the houses were paid for by the banks. The house is the collateral for the loan the bank made. The banks distorted the market with their easy money, and now they have to pay the consequences." }, { "docid": "295507", "title": "", "text": "\"Those \"\"haters\"\" are trying to convince you away from making a poor investment. It would honestly be unethical for us not to. Tell you what. Meet with these people in real life. Take a tour of their current operations. Do your due diligence. Ask them hard questions. Like. Why they need to reach out to friends for investment, rather than a venture capitalist or a bank loan? At worst they are lying and it is fraud. At best they are in over their head with bad business sense and you're about to get sucked into it. Just because weed in general is going to take off, does not mean YOUR weed shop is going to take off. Example: Smartphones have taken over the world. Microsoft recently axed its windows phone because it did not work out for them. Your weed shop could be the iphone of weed. It also could be the windows phone of weed. I know you've gone over how he has experienced high demand. There's a saying we like here: Past performance is not indicative of future results. Its entirely possible a large retail chain (Amazon perhaps?) could enter the market and undercut you to the point that you are making a loss.\"" }, { "docid": "423260", "title": "", "text": "Need help with a finance problem I'm currently facing in my business. My company might be going through an acquisition and I need to understand how the dilution works out for shareholders. They currently have large shareholder loans (debt), and will be converting to equity pre-transaction. For this case, if the original company value = $1 MM and the SHL value = $1 MM, I'm assuming that'd dilute equity by 50% for all shareholders if converted to equity at original company value. Correct? However, what if the $1 MM in shareholder loans were converted at the market value of the company, say $4 MM? I might be confusing myself, but just want to confirm.. thanks!" }, { "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": "110163", "title": "", "text": "Your best bet is to just look at comparative balance sheets or contact the company itself. Otherwise, you will need access to a service like PrivCo to get data." } ]

[ { "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": "274875", "title": "", "text": "I think the OP took responsibility for their mistakes by walking away from their mortgage and living life with in their means. If it screws the bank, so be it, because the bank failed in its responsibility to do due diligence, whether that means figuring out if their mortgagee can pay over the life of the loan and/or if the housing market is a bubble. And the houses were paid for by the banks. The house is the collateral for the loan the bank made. The banks distorted the market with their easy money, and now they have to pay the consequences." }, { "docid": "347554", "title": "", "text": "So I actually just messaged him like why do you need a copy of my college diploma and he said his lawyer said he needs a copy of the diplomas of the people he specifically supervises on an Italian client (we work in PR and have companies and sometimes government subsidized companies as clients)... so maybe it does check out? I mean I did my due diligence I'm not sure what else I can do. If he photoshops it, that's on him." }, { "docid": "235119", "title": "", "text": "Anything where the initial step of someone trying to get you into anything financial is to send you an e-mail. There are valid situations in which e-mails may be used to introduce you to a financial product or offer, such as if you have signed up for an electronic newsletter that includes such information. But in that particular case, the e-mail isn't the first step; rather, whatever caused you to sign up for the newsletter was. Even in a valid, legitimate scenario, you should obviously still perform due diligence and research the offer before committing any of your money. But the odds that someone is contacting you out of the blue via e-mail with a legitimate financial offer are tiny. The odds that a lawyer, a banker or someone similar in a remote country would initially contact you via e-mail are yet smaller; I'd call those odds infinitesimal. Non-zero, but unlikely enough that it is probably more likely that you would win the grand prize in the state lottery four times in a row. Keep in mind that responding in any way to spam e-mails will simply confirm to the sender that your e-mail address is valid and is being read. That is likely to cause you to receive more spam, not less, no matter the content of your response. Hence, it is better to flag the e-mail as spam or junk if your e-mail provider offers that feature, or just delete it if they don't. The same general principles as above also apply to social media messaging and similar venues, but the exact details are highly likely to differ somewhat." }, { "docid": "295507", "title": "", "text": "\"Those \"\"haters\"\" are trying to convince you away from making a poor investment. It would honestly be unethical for us not to. Tell you what. Meet with these people in real life. Take a tour of their current operations. Do your due diligence. Ask them hard questions. Like. Why they need to reach out to friends for investment, rather than a venture capitalist or a bank loan? At worst they are lying and it is fraud. At best they are in over their head with bad business sense and you're about to get sucked into it. Just because weed in general is going to take off, does not mean YOUR weed shop is going to take off. Example: Smartphones have taken over the world. Microsoft recently axed its windows phone because it did not work out for them. Your weed shop could be the iphone of weed. It also could be the windows phone of weed. I know you've gone over how he has experienced high demand. There's a saying we like here: Past performance is not indicative of future results. Its entirely possible a large retail chain (Amazon perhaps?) could enter the market and undercut you to the point that you are making a loss.\"" }, { "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": "328479", "title": "", "text": "There's not usually a point to issuing new stock as a dividend, because if you issue new stock, it dilutes the existing shareholders by the exact same amount as the dividend: so now they have a few more shares, great, but they're worth the exact same amount. (This assumes that all stockholders are equal. If there are multiple share classes, or people whose rights to a stock are tied to the stock price in some manner - options, warrants, or something - then a properly structured stock dividend could serve to enrich one set of shareholders and other rights-holders at the expense of another. But this is usually illegal.) If this sort of dividends are popular in China, I suspect it is due to some freaky regulatory or tax-related circumstances which are not present in the United States markets. China is kind of notorious for having unusual capital controls, limitations on the exchange of currency, and markets which are not very transparent." }, { "docid": "587137", "title": "", "text": "This is an old question that has an accepted answer, but it has gotten bumped due to an edit and the answers given are incorrect. I am assuming this means that every other Friday, the company is going into the open public market, buying those shares and then giving it out to the employees. No. Companies will internally hold shares that it intends to offer employees as additional compensation. There are no open market transactions, so the market price of the stock does not change (at least not due to buying pressure). The only net effect is an equivalent expense for the compensation, but that should already be accounted for in the share price as normal operating expenses. These share may come through an initial buyback from the market, but more common is that when companies issue new shares they keep some internally for exactly this situation. If they issued new shares every pay period, it would dilute the existing shares several times a quarter which would be difficult to account for." }, { "docid": "296098", "title": "", "text": "I'm not trying to sound mean here, because my intention is to encourage you to take the leap into entrepreneurship, but yes...your fear is completely irrational. The reason you see and hear about those mega-lawsuits is because they are sensational and controversial. They're actually pretty rare, and usually prohibitively costly to file. No one's going to successfully get an attorney to try and collect on a large amount of amount of money that you don't have. Most small business lawsuits are a result of either gross negligence on the business owners part (which would be justified) or terrible or misleading service (again justified). If you're going to do honest business, take responsibility for the work done, and do your due diligence to manage what goes on in your four walls, you'll be fine. Go for it...assuming you have a good business plan, and know what you're getting into. Of course." }, { "docid": "194052", "title": "", "text": "**Know your customer** Know your customer (KYC) is the process of a business identifying and verifying the identity of its clients. The term is also used to refer to the bank and anti-money laundering regulations which governs these activities. Know your customer processes are also employed by companies of all sizes for the purpose of ensuring their proposed agents, consultants, or distributors are anti-bribery compliant. Banks, insurers and export creditors are increasingly demanding that customers provide detailed anti-corruption due diligence information. *** ^[ [^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/business/about/banned) ^| [^FAQ ^/ ^Information](https://np.reddit.com/r/WikiTextBot/wiki/index) ^| [^Source](https://github.com/kittenswolf/WikiTextBot) ^] ^Downvote ^to ^remove ^| ^v0.27" }, { "docid": "32748", "title": "", "text": "Well keep in mind until the 2007ish housing crash Fannie and Freddie MADE money, they received no help from the federal gov't. The whole idea of the secondary mortgage market was to keep money flowing to home buyers and everyone who bought a home benefited (via rates a few points lower than if banks had to keep all the capital on hand to back all the loans) Both these institutions worked well for about 40 years, the criminality here was that ratings agency rated these bonds as AAA, when in fact they were junk, that's who failed in their due diligence and really should be held accountable. (as if they were rated junk, the banks would have no one to buy them except at junk bond interest rates, meaning they wouldn't have made these loans to people who couldn't really afford houses.) The rating agencies were *supposed* to be neutral evaluators of the debt, and instead they essentially took what amounts to bribes from the banks to rate them highly." }, { "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": "470968", "title": "", "text": "\"&gt;Most small business lawsuits are a result of either gross negligence on the business owners part (which would be justified) or terrible or misleading service (again justified). If you're going to do honest business, take responsibility for the work done, and do your due diligence to manage what goes on in your four walls, you'll be fine. Either that or they are over very \"\"silly\"\" things that general liability insurance will handle -- stuff like slips/falls in front of your retail storefront, etc.\"" }, { "docid": "120061", "title": "", "text": "\"First piece of advice: fire your agent. A pushy agent is a bad agent. From what you've told us, he's actually given you poor advice regarding mortgage interest rates. Rates are already at historic lows. That and the precarious state of the world economy mean that further rate cuts are more likely in the near term. Second piece of advice: While more information on the real estate market you're in would help, going in at asking price is rarely a good idea. Sale prices from \"\"the last few years\"\" are not relevant to what you should pay, because the last few years include a financial crisis caused in large part by the bursting of a housing bubble. They could be even less relevant depending on your location because of a spike in foreclosures in certain areas of the U.S. There was already a ton of housing inventory before, so an increase due to foreclosures is going to depress prices further. Now that banks are finally practicing the due diligence they should have been all along, your ability to be pre-approved for large mortgage amount puts you in a strong position. Use a tool like Zillow or Redfin to see what properties in that area have sold for over the past six months. You should also be able to see a history of what prices the particular property you're interested in has been offered and/or sold at in the past. Also check and see how long the particular property you're interested in has been on the market. If it's been on the market more than 60-90 days, it's priced too high.\"" }, { "docid": "47744", "title": "", "text": "Title agencies perform several things: Research the title for defects. You may not know what you're looking at, unless you're a real-estate professional, but some titles have strings attached to them (like, conditions for resale, usage, changes, etc). Research title issues (like misrepresentation of ownership, misrepresentation of the actual property titled, misrepresentation of conditions). Again, not being a professional in the domain, you might not understand the text you're looking at. Research liens. Those are usually have to be recorded (i.e.: the title company won't necessarily find a lien if it wasn't recorded with the county). Cover your a$$. And the bank's. They provide title insurance that guarantees your money back if they missed something they were supposed to find. The title insurance is usually required for a mortgaged transaction. While I understand why you would think you can do it, most people cannot. Even if they think they can - they cannot. In many areas this research cannot be done online, for example in California - you have to go to the county recorder office to look things up (for legal reasons, in CA counties are not allowed to provide access to certain information without verification of who's accessing). It may be worth your while to pay someone to do it, even if you can do it yourself, because your time is more valuable. Also, keep in mind that while you may trust your abilities - your bank won't. So you may be able to do your own due diligence - but the bank needs to do its own. Specifically to Detroit - the city is bankrupt. Every $100K counts for them. I'm surprised they only charge $6 per search, but that is probably limited by the State law." }, { "docid": "204478", "title": "", "text": "\"I'm not a financial expert... In my opinion it might be best to have as much in savings (aka being liquid and the funds are insured by the FDIC) as possible for a couple of reasons. If you lose your job, your equity line could then get frozen if the bank finds out. What you want to avoid is only owing 20 grand on your home (because you paid a chunk off with your savings) but because you lost your job you can't take any money out of your home and suddenly you are equity rich, cash poor, and jobless, that is a potential for big trouble. I'm curious why you borrowed on the Heloc since you seem to have a significant amount in savings anyways. What you really might want to look into is lowering your mortgage interest rate to around 3.5% I would use the credit card debt as a reality check. Make sure every month you are making at least a 10% to 15% of the total due payment. This dilutes the interest rate charge and lets you see the true \"\"drag\"\" credit card debt payments really have on your life. I don't know this for sure but the higher amount credit card payments you make probably reflects well on your credit score, and of course, never be late with the credit card payments either.\"" }, { "docid": "594206", "title": "", "text": "Just browsed their website. Not a single name of anybody involved. Their application process isn't safe(No https usage while transferring private information). And considering they contacted you rather than you contacting them, I will be very wary about how they got my details. And they are located in Indonesia. And a simple google takes me to a BOILER SCAM thread. So all in all you have been scammed. Try asking for your money back, but may not be that helpful. Next time before giving your money to somebody, do some due diligence. These type of scams aren't new and are very common." }, { "docid": "128338", "title": "", "text": "\"I was thinking more of a limit on the TOTAL # of patents (something fairly small, like maybe 10,000 total patents are allowed to be valid at any given moment in time), so that patent applications from multiple sources have to be somehow compared with each other to decide which would provide more societal-benefit by being allowed patent status. If you want to take the government (mostly) out of the picture, then maybe use an auction format - when a valid patent \"\"slot\"\" becomes available (due to a previously-granted patent expiring, or being invalidated due to court challenge), then anyone who wants their idea to get patent rights submits their application to an \"\"auction\"\" for that slot. Then the people who want to OWN the patent rights to any of those submitted ideas will bid for them. Whoever pays the top bid will get the patent rights for the concepts in the specific application they were targeting. This will force the people who are doing the bidding to basically do the \"\"due diligence\"\" on each patent application (instead of depending on the patent examiners), since they will not want to pay a lot of money to get the patent rights for an idea, only to have that patent's value be destroyed by being declared invalid in court. If you want to encourage small inventors to throw their hat into the ring, then set things up so that the money from the winning bid goes to the inventor who submitted the original application. This way, you get the best of both worlds - the inventor gets compensated (handsomely in most cases) for their good idea, and the idea being patented gets into the hands of someone with enough resources to exploit the idea in a broad scale.\"" }, { "docid": "73260", "title": "", "text": "So in a sense, I can think of the employees / option-holders as another investor? That makes sense - but many of the examples I'm finding online are still confusing me. Based on the example above, it seems like option-holders would be paying the same exercise price as the VC. Per [Andreesen Horowitz](https://a16z.com/2016/08/24/options-ownership/) this seems uncommon: &gt; The exercise price of employee options — the price per share needed to actually own the shares — is often less than the original issue price paid by the most recent investor, who holds preferred stock. In reality, would option-holders receive, say, 40% (using example above) for their $6m in exercise value due to receiving common stock, with the founder being diluted to even further?" } ]

[ { "docid": "38655", "title": "", "text": "\"You will have to check SEC forms to know this in full. A publicly-traded company will have an amount of publicly tradable shares which can be easily found on their financial reports. But. that is not the only type of equity-like financial instrument that such a company can issue. A previous reply mentions \"\"follow-on\"\" public offering. However, a company may initiate a private equity offering without disclosing ahead of time, sometimes with warrants, or long-lasting options to purchase (new) stock.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "308964", "title": "", "text": "\"I think you're right that these sites look so unprofessional that they aren't likely to be legitimate. However, even a very legitimate-looking site might be a fake designed to separate you from your money. There is an entire underground industry devoted to this kind of fakery and some of them are adept at what they do. So how can you tell? One place that you can consult is FINRA's BrokerCheck online service. This might be the first of many checks you should undertake. Who is FINRA, you might ask? \"\"The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) is the largest independent regulator for all securities firms doing business in the United States.\"\" See here. My unprofessional guess is, even if a firm's line of business is to broker deals in private company shares, that if they're located in the U.S. or else dealing in U.S. securities then they'd still need to be registered with FINRA – note the \"\"all securities firms\"\" above. I was able to search BrokerCheck and find SecondMarket (the firm @duffbeer703 mentioned) listed as \"\"Active\"\" in the FINRA database. The entry also provides some information about the firm. For instance, SecondMarket appears to also be registered with the S.E.C.. You should also note that SecondMarket links back to these authorities (refer to the footer of their site): \"\"Member FINRA | MSRB | SIPC. Registered with the SEC as an alternative trading system for trading in private company shares. SEC 606 Info [...]\"\" Any legitimate broker would want you to look them up with the authorities if you're unsure about their legitimacy. However, to undertake any such kind of deal, I'd still suggest more due diligence. An accredited investor with serious money to invest ought to, if they are not already experts themselves on these things, hire a professional who is expert to provide counsel, help navigate the system, and avoid the frauds.\"" }, { "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": "295507", "title": "", "text": "\"Those \"\"haters\"\" are trying to convince you away from making a poor investment. It would honestly be unethical for us not to. Tell you what. Meet with these people in real life. Take a tour of their current operations. Do your due diligence. Ask them hard questions. Like. Why they need to reach out to friends for investment, rather than a venture capitalist or a bank loan? At worst they are lying and it is fraud. At best they are in over their head with bad business sense and you're about to get sucked into it. Just because weed in general is going to take off, does not mean YOUR weed shop is going to take off. Example: Smartphones have taken over the world. Microsoft recently axed its windows phone because it did not work out for them. Your weed shop could be the iphone of weed. It also could be the windows phone of weed. I know you've gone over how he has experienced high demand. There's a saying we like here: Past performance is not indicative of future results. Its entirely possible a large retail chain (Amazon perhaps?) could enter the market and undercut you to the point that you are making a loss.\"" }, { "docid": "32748", "title": "", "text": "Well keep in mind until the 2007ish housing crash Fannie and Freddie MADE money, they received no help from the federal gov't. The whole idea of the secondary mortgage market was to keep money flowing to home buyers and everyone who bought a home benefited (via rates a few points lower than if banks had to keep all the capital on hand to back all the loans) Both these institutions worked well for about 40 years, the criminality here was that ratings agency rated these bonds as AAA, when in fact they were junk, that's who failed in their due diligence and really should be held accountable. (as if they were rated junk, the banks would have no one to buy them except at junk bond interest rates, meaning they wouldn't have made these loans to people who couldn't really afford houses.) The rating agencies were *supposed* to be neutral evaluators of the debt, and instead they essentially took what amounts to bribes from the banks to rate them highly." }, { "docid": "594206", "title": "", "text": "Just browsed their website. Not a single name of anybody involved. Their application process isn't safe(No https usage while transferring private information). And considering they contacted you rather than you contacting them, I will be very wary about how they got my details. And they are located in Indonesia. And a simple google takes me to a BOILER SCAM thread. So all in all you have been scammed. Try asking for your money back, but may not be that helpful. Next time before giving your money to somebody, do some due diligence. These type of scams aren't new and are very common." }, { "docid": "369675", "title": "", "text": "\"A \"\"covenant\"\" is a solemn promise to engage in or refrain from a specified action. Every company must do a balancing act while declaring the dividends in terms of companies interest (can it use the surplus cash to generate more revenue) to shareholders' interests, giving back to them the profits that due. Many countries have regulations governing as to when and how much the dividends may be given. It also lays out the policy about declaring dividends to protect everyones' interest. For example if the company has a huge suit pending against it, the company is not supposed to distribute the surplus cash as dividends and when the suit goes against it, its left when no money to pay ... or other such examples where the interests of one or the other party is compromised. The company law board ensures that all this is adhered to in a fair manner. So essentially \"\"these covenants include provisions about passing dividends\"\", means that due diligence has be exercised by the company in order to arrive at the dividends that are to be paid out.\"" }, { "docid": "423260", "title": "", "text": "Need help with a finance problem I'm currently facing in my business. My company might be going through an acquisition and I need to understand how the dilution works out for shareholders. They currently have large shareholder loans (debt), and will be converting to equity pre-transaction. For this case, if the original company value = $1 MM and the SHL value = $1 MM, I'm assuming that'd dilute equity by 50% for all shareholders if converted to equity at original company value. Correct? However, what if the $1 MM in shareholder loans were converted at the market value of the company, say $4 MM? I might be confusing myself, but just want to confirm.. thanks!" }, { "docid": "42944", "title": "", "text": "\"A quick Craigslist search in my area (New England) pops up a number of RVs in claimed good/running condition in the $2000 - $5000 range, so it's not \"\"too good to be true\"\" that a motivated seller would sell one slightly below market: selling things is a lot of work, and lowering prices is essentially paying the buyer to not make you do that work. Of course, you should still do you due diligence: If the seller objects to you doing this, then you should be suspicious (inexperienced sellers, e.g. a widow whose husband may have handled these things in the past, might get spooked by asking to take it to a mechanic, so be prepared to reassure on that front). Otherwise it's no more risk than any used vehicle purchase.\"" }, { "docid": "128338", "title": "", "text": "\"I was thinking more of a limit on the TOTAL # of patents (something fairly small, like maybe 10,000 total patents are allowed to be valid at any given moment in time), so that patent applications from multiple sources have to be somehow compared with each other to decide which would provide more societal-benefit by being allowed patent status. If you want to take the government (mostly) out of the picture, then maybe use an auction format - when a valid patent \"\"slot\"\" becomes available (due to a previously-granted patent expiring, or being invalidated due to court challenge), then anyone who wants their idea to get patent rights submits their application to an \"\"auction\"\" for that slot. Then the people who want to OWN the patent rights to any of those submitted ideas will bid for them. Whoever pays the top bid will get the patent rights for the concepts in the specific application they were targeting. This will force the people who are doing the bidding to basically do the \"\"due diligence\"\" on each patent application (instead of depending on the patent examiners), since they will not want to pay a lot of money to get the patent rights for an idea, only to have that patent's value be destroyed by being declared invalid in court. If you want to encourage small inventors to throw their hat into the ring, then set things up so that the money from the winning bid goes to the inventor who submitted the original application. This way, you get the best of both worlds - the inventor gets compensated (handsomely in most cases) for their good idea, and the idea being patented gets into the hands of someone with enough resources to exploit the idea in a broad scale.\"" }, { "docid": "305085", "title": "", "text": "\"The problems with ratings and the interpretation of ratings is that they are retrospective, and most people read them as prospective. They basically tell you that debtor is solvent right now. What does that mean? It means that the ratings are based on the audited financial statements of a company, government or other organization issuing debt. So, in the best case scenario where the rating agency is acting properly, they are still dependent on folks with fiduciary responsibility telling the truth. And even if they are telling the \"\"truth\"\", accounting rules make it possible to obscure problems for years in some cases. Municipal goverments are a great example of this... the general obligation bonds cities and even states with deep structural budget problems still get good ratings, because they are solvent and have sufficient operating cash to meet obligations today. But towards the end of a 30-year bond's life, that may not be the case anymore unless they dramatically alter their budgets. At the end of the day, ratings are one aspect of due diligence. They are useful screening devices, but you need to understand who you are lending money to by purchasing bonds and diversify your holdings to protect your wealth. The problem, of course, is when the trustees of your pension fund invests in garbage assets after getting a sales pitch on the beach in Hawaii, then conveniently place all of the blame for that bad investment on the rating agency. You unfortunately have zero control over that.\"" }, { "docid": "227781", "title": "", "text": "Many (if not all) of these companies have former I-bankers in their corp dev groups. The author's platform is one of many that can connect buyers and sellers directly. At the end of the day, if you are a buyer, do you have the resources and competence to conduct proper due diligence? Quite possibly. As a seller, do you have the ability to understand industry dynamics and the ability to maximize your valuation? Doubtful. Buy side M&amp;A has merit, but sell side M&amp;A has proven to deliver value to the majority of clients." }, { "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": "120061", "title": "", "text": "\"First piece of advice: fire your agent. A pushy agent is a bad agent. From what you've told us, he's actually given you poor advice regarding mortgage interest rates. Rates are already at historic lows. That and the precarious state of the world economy mean that further rate cuts are more likely in the near term. Second piece of advice: While more information on the real estate market you're in would help, going in at asking price is rarely a good idea. Sale prices from \"\"the last few years\"\" are not relevant to what you should pay, because the last few years include a financial crisis caused in large part by the bursting of a housing bubble. They could be even less relevant depending on your location because of a spike in foreclosures in certain areas of the U.S. There was already a ton of housing inventory before, so an increase due to foreclosures is going to depress prices further. Now that banks are finally practicing the due diligence they should have been all along, your ability to be pre-approved for large mortgage amount puts you in a strong position. Use a tool like Zillow or Redfin to see what properties in that area have sold for over the past six months. You should also be able to see a history of what prices the particular property you're interested in has been offered and/or sold at in the past. Also check and see how long the particular property you're interested in has been on the market. If it's been on the market more than 60-90 days, it's priced too high.\"" }, { "docid": "492694", "title": "", "text": "Well, that is why I am asking questions, and seeing if there is any catch. I want to read up before I actually trade. Before I trades stocks I read for like 2 years, learning as much as I could. I am not about to jump in, but it is something I would like to trade eventually. I know I need to do my due diligence on it. The reason I came here was to get information on the topic before I decided on anything, including books and websites." }, { "docid": "67006", "title": "", "text": "For stocks, I would not see these as profiting at the expense of another individual. When you purchase/trade stocks, you are exchanging items of equal market value at the time of the trade. Both parties are getting a fair exchange when the transaction happens. If you buy a house, the seller has not profited at your expense. You have exchanged goods at market prices. If your house plummets in value and you lose $100k, it is not the sellers fault that you made the decision to purchase. The price was fair when you exchanged the goods. Future prices are speculative, so both parties must perform due diligence to make sure the exchange aligns with their interests. Obviously, this is barring any sort of dishonesty or insider information on the part of either buyer or seller." }, { "docid": "352339", "title": "", "text": "It's worthwhile to try and find a better minimum down-payment. When I bought my home, I got an FHA loan, which drastically reduced the minimum down-payment required (I think the minimum is 3% under FHA). Be aware that any down-payment percentage under 20% means that you'll have to pay for private mortgage insurance (PMI) as part of your monthly mortgage. Here's a good definition of it. Part of the challenge you're experiencing may be that banks are only now exercising the due diligence with borrowers for mortgages that they should have been all along. I hope you're successful in finding the right payment. Getting a mortgage to reduce your spending on housing relative to rent is a wise move. In addition to fixing your monthly costs at a consistent level (unlike rent, which can rise for reasons you don't control), the mortgage interest deduction makes for a rather helpful tax benefit." }, { "docid": "174238", "title": "", "text": "The issue of unclaimed life insurance policies is a hot topic right now. Your questions are exactly the reason why. For a long time unclaimed life insurance policies have been a boon to life insurance companies but the states are cracking down. There is a lot of new legislation that requires the companies to make a diligent effort to find the rightful beneficiary. In some states if the beneficiary can't be found the proceeds wind up in the states abandoned assets fund. The death benefit is payable if the policy was in force on the date of death. Since no premium is actually due after the insured dies it doesn't matter if the policy lapses after the insured dies. You're correct that there is no one place to go to find out if you are the beneficiary of an unclaimed life insurance policy. Our agency has a resource page which gives you tactics to follow in order to do a search. See How To Find Lost Or Unclaimed Life Insurance Policies." }, { "docid": "231259", "title": "", "text": "Obviously, there's some due diligence and quantitative analysis. However, it's mostly just what they can secure, for how much and how quickly. For instance, if you had a bakery that was netting 200,000/yr and needed 750,000 to open a new location. The bank will give you the loan over 10 years at 1.1%. Well, it's probably a good idea to take on debt. That's 6938 a month (I think). Edit: Or issue debt yourself. However, let's say you're merging with someone in the same industry. They have a market cap of 10 billion. Your company has a market cap of 62 billion and revenue of 11.8 billion a year. It's probably a good idea to secure with equity. Especially because you believe the merger will help you expand." }, { "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": "392317", "title": "", "text": "If I hold a bond then I have a debt asset. If I hold physical silver then I have a commodity asset. If I hold the stock of an individual company then I have an equity asset. Equities, commodities and debts are the three kinds of assets that a person can hold. Edit: I forgot one other kind of asset; monetary asset. If I stuff my mattress with cash (USD) I am holding a monetary asset. Short-term Treasury Bills really behave more like a monetary asset than a bond. So besides actual, physical, currency I would categorize T-bill as a monetary asset. https://www.treasurydirect.gov/indiv/products/prod_tbills_glance.htm" } ]

[ { "docid": "367957", "title": "", "text": "\"First off, with startups, forget that you know about common structures of debt and equity. Just try to think of this money as a generic \"\"investment\"\" that meets the investors risk and return objectives. Startups are unique in that they are high risk but generally have almost no assets or security for an investor. Investors generically want two things: 1) Return and 2) Limited Risk. Without speculating too much: consider that the investor might be viewing the return component as the 30% equity and the 8% dividend and he views the risk management component as the additional 30% equity, until repaid. A different way of looking at this might be that the investor would require an equity stake greater than 30% with greater than a 8% dividend if he did not get the initial investment back in return for the reduced stake. In other words, this structure is debt and equity because that is what the investor can demand. Maybe you can get around this by offering a higher equity stake or offering something else although this structure is common because it aligns interests of the investor and the startup.\"" }, { "docid": "273345", "title": "", "text": "Yes, Regulation T is specified as the equity percentage of assets. So, yes, one can buy double the amount of equity in initial buying power but no more. A broker shouldn't even permit purchases that would violate margin regulation. Maintenance margin is at 25%, so equity must remain above 25% of the total or the brokerage will force liquidations." }, { "docid": "275249", "title": "", "text": "\"There are three (or four) ways that a company can grow: (Crowdfunding is a relatively new (in mainstream businesses) alternative financing method where people will finance a company with the expectation that they will benefit from the product or service that they provide.) Obviously a startup has no prior income to use, so it must either raise money through equity or debt. People say that one must borrow contingent on their salary. Banks lend money based on the ability to pay the loan back plus interest. For individuals, their income is their primary source of cash flow, so, yes, it is usually the determining factor in getting a loan. For a business the key factor is future cash flows. So a business will borrow money, say, to buy a new asset (like a factory) that will be used to generate cash flows in the future so that they can pay down the debt. If the bank believes that the use of the money is going to be profitable enough that they will get their money back with interest, they'll loan the money. Equity investors are essentially the same, but since they don't get a guaranteed payback (they only get paid through non-guaranteed dividends or liquidation), their risk is higher and they are looking for higher expected returns. So the question I'd have as a bank or equity investor is \"\"what are you going to do with the money?\"\" What is your business strategy? What are you going to do that will make profits in the future? Do you have a special idea or skill that you can turn into a profitable business? (Crowdfunding would be similar - people are willing to give you money based on either the social or personal benefit of some product or service.) So any business either starts small and grows over time (which is how the vast majority of businesses grow), or has some special idea, asset, skill, or something that would make a bank willing to take a risk on a huge loan. I know, again, that people here tend to turn blind eyes on unfortunate realities, but people do make giant businesses without having giant incomes. The \"\"unfortunate reality\"\" is that most startups fail. Which may sound bad, but also keep in mind that most startups are created by people that are OK with failing. They are people that are willing to fail 9 times with the thought that the 10th one will take off and make up for the losses of the first 9. So I would say - if you have some great idea or skill and a viable strategy and plan to take it to market, then GO FOR IT. You don't need a huge salary to start off. You need something that you can take to market and make money. Most people (myself included) either do not have that idea or skill to go out on their own, or don't have the courage to take that kind of risk. But don't go in assuming all you need is a loan and you'll be an instant millionaire. You might, but the odds are very long.\"" }, { "docid": "434266", "title": "", "text": "You should look into a home equity line of credit: A home equity line of credit (often called HELOC and pronounced HEE-lock) is a loan in which the lender agrees to lend a maximum amount within an agreed period (called a term), where the collateral is the borrower's equity in his/her house. Because a home often is a consumer's most valuable asset, many homeowners use home equity credit lines only for major items, such as education, home improvements, or medical bills, and choose not to use them for day-to-day expenses." }, { "docid": "202253", "title": "", "text": "Sorry, I got even more confused. I assumed IC referred to equity only. At least under English accounting practice it's the norm to refer only to equity investment as capital in that context. The debt is listed as both an asset (cash or whatever asset the cash has been put towards) and a liability, cancelling it out. That being the case, the number would be the same, no?" }, { "docid": "434257", "title": "", "text": "\"Accounting for this properly is not a trivial matter, and you would be wise to pay a little extra to talk with a lawyer and/or CPA to ensure the precise wording. How best to structure such an arrangement will depend upon your particular jurisdiction, as this is not a federal matter - you need someone licensed to advise in your particular state at least. The law of real estate co-ownership (as defined on a deed) is not sufficient for the task you are asking of it - you need something more sophisticated. Family Partnership (we'll call it FP) is created (LLC, LLP, whatever). We'll say April + A-Husband gets 50%, and Sister gets 50% equity (how you should handle ownership with your husband is outside the scope of this answer, but you should probably talk it over with a lawyer and this will depend on your state!). A loan is taken out to buy the property, in this case with all partners personally guaranteeing the loan equally, but the loan is really being taken out by FP. The mortgage should probably show 100% ownership by FP, not by any of you individually - you will only be guaranteeing the loan, and your ownership is purely through the partnership. You and your husband put $20,000 into the partnership. The FP now lists a $20,000 liability to you, and a $20,000 asset in cash. FP buys the $320,000 house (increase assets) with a $300,000 mortgage (liability) and $20,000 cash (decrease assets). Equity in the partnership is $0 right now. The ownership at present is clear. You own 50% of $0, and your sister owns 50% of $0. Where'd your money go?! Simple - it's a liability of the partnership, so you and your husband are together owed $20,000 by the partnership before any equity exists. Everything balances nicely at this point. Note that you should account for paying closing costs the same as you considered the down payment - that money should be paid back to you before any is doled out as investment profit! Now, how do you handle mortgage payments? This actually isn't as hard as it sounds, thanks to the nature of a partnership and proper business accounting. With a good foundation the rest of the building proceeds quite cleanly. On month 1 your sister pays $1400 into the partnership, while you pay $645 into the partnership. FP will record an increase in assets (cash) of $1800, an increase in liability to your sister of $1400, and an increase in liability to you of $645. FP will then record a decrease in cash assets of $1800 to pay the mortgage, with a matching increase in cost account for the mortgage. No net change in equity, but your individual contributions are still preserved. Let's say that now after only 1 month you decide to sell the property - someone makes an offer you just can't refuse of $350,000 dollars (we'll pretend all the closing costs disappeared in buying and selling, but it should be clear how to account for those as I mention earlier). Now what happens? FP gets an increase in cash assets of $350,000, decreases the house asset ($320,000 - original purchase price), and pays off the mortgage - for simplicity let's pretend it's still $300,000 somehow. Now there's $50,000 in cash left in the partnership - who's money is it? By accounting for the house this way, the answer is easily determined. First all investments are paid back - so you get back $20,000 for the down payment, $645 for your mortgage payments so far, and your sister gets back $1400 for her mortgage payment. There is now $27,995 left, and by being equal partners you get to split it - 13,977 to you and your husband and the same amount to your sister (I'm keeping the extra dollar for my advice to talk to a lawyer/CPA). What About Getting To Live There? The fact is that your sister is getting a little something extra out of the deal - she get's the live there! How do you account for that? Well, you might just be calling it a gift. The problem is you aren't in any way, shape, or form putting that in writing, assigning it a value, nothing. Also, what do you do if you want to sell/cash out or at least get rid of the mortgage, as it will be showing up as a debt on your credit report and will effect your ability to secure financing of your own in the future if you decide to buy a house for your husband and yourself? Now this is the kind of stuff where families get in trouble. You are mixing personal lives and business arrangements, and some things are not written down (like the right to occupy the property) and this can really get messy. Would evicting your sister to sell the house before you all go bankrupt on a bad deal make future family gatherings tense? I'm betting it might. There should be a carefully worded lease probably from the partnership to your sister. That would help protect you from extra court costs in trying to determine who has the rights to occupy the property, especially if it's also written up as part of the partnership agreement...but now you are building the potential for eviction proceedings against your sister right into an investment deal? Ugh, what a potential nightmare! And done right, there should probably be some dollar value assigned to the right to live there and use the property. Unless you just want to really gift that to your sister, but this can be a kind of invisible and poorly quantified gift - and those don't usually work very well psychologically. And it also means she's going to be getting an awfully larger benefit from this \"\"investment\"\" than you and your husband - do you think that might cause animosity over dozens and dozens of writing out the check to pay for the property while not realizing any direct benefit while you pay to keep up your own living circumstances too? In short, you need a legal structure that can properly account for the fact that you are starting out in-equal contributors to your scheme, and ongoing contributions will be different over time too. What if she falls on hard times and you make a few of the mortgage payments? What if she wants to redo the bathroom and insists on paying for the whole thing herself or with her own loan, etc? With a properly documented partnership - or equivalent such business entity - these questions are easily resolved. They can be equitably handled by a court in event of family squabble, divorce, death, bankruptcy, emergency liquidation, early sale, refinance - you name it. No percentage of simple co-ownership recorded on a deed can do any of this for you. No math can provide you the proper protection that a properly organized business entity can. I would thus strongly advise you, your husband, and your sister to spend the comparatively tiny amount of extra money to get advice from a real estate/investment lawyer/CPA to get you set up right. Keep all receipts and you can pay a book keeper or the accountant to do end of the year taxes, and answer questions that will come up like how to properly account for things like depreciation on taxes. Your intuition that you should make sure things are formally written up in times when everyone is on good terms is extremely wise, so please follow it up with in-person paid consultation from an expert. And no matter what, this deal as presently structured has a really large built-in potential for heartache as you have three partners AND one of the partners is also renting the property partially from themselves while putting no money down? This has a great potential to be a train wreck, so please do look into what would happen if these went wrong into some more detail and write up in advance - in a legally binding way - what all parties rights and responsibilities are.\"" }, { "docid": "538727", "title": "", "text": "There are all sorts of topics in finance that take a lot of time to learn. You have valuation (time value of money, capital asset pricing model, dividend discount model, etc.), financial statement analysis (ratio analysis, free cash flow &amp; discounted cash flow, etc.) , capital structure analysis(Modgliani &amp; Miller theories of capital structure, weighted average cost of capital, more CAPM, the likes), and portfolio management (asset allocation, security selection, integrates financial statement analysis + other fields like derivatives, fixed income, forex, and commodity markets) and all sorts. My opinion of Investopedia is that there is a lot of wheat with the chaff. I think articles/entries are just user-submitted and there are good gems in Investopedia but a lot of it only covers very basic concepts. And you often don't know what you don't know, so you might come out with a weak understanding of something. To begin, you need to understand TVM and why it works. Time value of money is a critical concept of finance that I feel many people don't truly grasp and just understand you need some 'rate' to use for this formula. Also, as a prereq, you should understand basics of accrual accounting (debits &amp; credits) and how the accounting system works. Don't need to know things like asset retirement obligations, or anything fancy, just how accounting works and how things affect certain financial statements. After that, I'd jump into CAPM and cost of capital. Cost of capital is also a very misunderstood concept since schools often just give students the 'cost of capital' for math problems when in reality, it's not just an explicit number but more of a 'general feeling' in the environment. Calculating cost of capital is actually often very tricky (market risk premium) and subjective, sometimes it's not (LIBOR based). After that, you can build up on those basic concepts and start to do things like dividend discount models (basic theory underlying asset pricing models) and capital asset pricing models, which builds on the idea of cost of capital. Then go into valuation. Learn how to price equities, bonds, derivatives, etc. For example, you have the dividend discount model with typical equities and perpetuities. Fixed income has things like duration &amp; convexity to measure risk and analyze yield curves. Derivatives, you have the Black-Scholes model and other 'derivatives' (heh) of that formula for calculating prices of options, futures, CDOs, etc. Valuation is essentially taking the idea of TVM to the next logical step. Then you can start delving into financial modelling. Free cash flows, discounted cash flows, ratio analysis, pro forma projections. Start small, use a structured problem that gives you some inputs and just do calculations. Bonuses* would be ideas of capital structure (really not necessary for entry level positions) like the M&amp;M theorems on capital structure (debt vs equity), portfolio management (risk management, asset allocation, hedging, investment strategies like straddles, inverse floaters, etc), and knowledge of financial institutions and banking regulations (Basel accords, depository regulations, the Fed, etc.). Once you gain an understanding of how this works, pick something out there and do a report on it. Then you'll be left with a single 'word problem' that gives you nothing except a problem and tells you to find an answer. You'll have to find all the inputs and give reasons why these inputs are sound and reasonable inputs for this analysis. A big part that people don't understand about projections and analysis is that **inputs don't exist in plain sight**. You have to make a lot of judgment calls when making these assumptions and it takes a lot of technical understanding to make a reasonable assumption--of which the results of your report highly depend on. As a finance student, you get a taste for all of this. I'm gonna say it's going to be hard to learn a lot of substantial info in 2 months, but I'm not exactly sure what big business expects out of their grunts. You'll mostly be doing practical work like desk jockey business, data entry, and other labor-based jobs. If you know what you're talking about, you can probably work up to something more specialized like underwriting or risk management or something else. Source: Finance degree but currently working towards starting a (finance related) company to draw on my programming background as well." }, { "docid": "77178", "title": "", "text": "\"The bank \"\"credit's\"\" your account for money coming into it. In double entry accounting, you always have a debit and a credit to balance the accounts. As an Example: for $500 that the bank credited to your checking account, you would post a debit to Cash and a Credit to Income Earned. The accounting equation is: Assets = Liabilities + Owner's Equity $500 = $500 Cash is the \"\"Asset\"\" side of the equation, Income is part of Owner's Equity, and so is the Credit side... to make the equation balanced.\"" }, { "docid": "235484", "title": "", "text": "\"Is all interest on a first time home deductible on taxes? What does that even mean? If I pay $14,000 in taxes will My taxes be $14,000 less. Will my taxable income by that much less? If you use the standard deduction in the US (assuming United States), you will have 0 benefit from a mortgage. If you itemize deductions, then your interest paid (not principal) and your property tax paid is deductible and reduces your income for tax purposes. If your marginal tax rate is 25% and you pay $10000 in interest and property tax, then when you file your taxes, you'll owe (or get a refund) of $2500 (marginal tax rate * (amount of interest + property tax)). I have heard the term \"\"The equity on your home is like a bank\"\". What does that mean? I suppose I could borrow using the equity in my home as collateral? If you pay an extra $500 to your mortgage, then your equity in your house goes up by $500 as well. When you pay down the principal by $500 on a car loan (depreciating asset) you end up with less than $500 in value in the car because the car's value is going down. When you do the same in an appreciating asset, you still have that money available to you though you either need to sell or get a loan to use that money. Are there any other general benefits that would drive me from paying $800 in rent, to owning a house? There are several other benefits. These are a few of the positives, but know that there are many negatives to home ownership and the cost of real estate transactions usually dictate that buying doesn't make sense until you want to stay put for 5-7 years. A shorter duration than that usually are better served by renting. The amount of maintenance on a house you own is almost always under estimated by new home owners.\"" }, { "docid": "549181", "title": "", "text": "A company's Return on Equity (ROE) is its net income divided by its shareholder's equity. The shareholder's equity is the difference between total assets and total liabilities, and is not dependent on the stock price. What it takes to have a ROE over 100% is to have the income be greater than the equity. This might happen for a variety of reasons, but one way a high ROE happens is if the shareholder's equity (the divisor) is small, which can occur if past losses have eroded the company's capital (the original invested cash and retained earnings). If the equity has become a small value, the income for some period might exceed it, and so the ROE would be over 100%. Operating margin is not closely related to ROE. Although operating income is related to net income, to calculate the margin you divide by sales, which is completely unrelated to shareholder's equity. So there is no relationship with ROE to be expected. Operating margin is primarily dependent on market conditions, and can be substantially different in different industries." }, { "docid": "554087", "title": "", "text": "What could a small guy with $100 do to make himself not poor To answer the question directly, not much. Short of investing in something at the exact moment before it goes bananas, then reinvesting into a bigger stock and bigger etc, it's super high risk. A better way is to sacrifice some small things, less coffee, less smokes, less going out partying so that instead of having $100, you have $100 a week. This puts you into a situation where you can save enough to become a deposit on an appreciating asset (choose your own asset class, property in AU for me). Take out a loan for as much as you can for your $100 a week payment and make it interest only with an offset against it, distributions from shares can either be reinvested or put into the offset or in the case of property, rent can be put against the offset, pretty soon you end up with a scenario where you have cash offsetting a loan down to nothing but you still have access to the cash, invest into another place and revalue your asset, you can take out any equity that has grown and put that also into your offset. Keep pulling equity and using the money from the offset as deposits on other assets (it kind of works really well on property) and within 15 years you can build an empire with a passive income to retire on. The biggest thing the rich guys get that the poor guys don't is that debt is GOOD, use someone else's money to buy an appreciating asset then when you pay it back eventually, you own the growth. Use debt to buy more debt for exponential growth. Of course, you need to also invest your time to research what you are investing in, you need to know when you make the decision to buy that it will appreciate, it's no good just buying off a tip, you may as well drop your money on the horses if you want to play it like that. Fortunately, one thing we all have in common regardless of our money is time, we have time which we can invest." }, { "docid": "509939", "title": "", "text": "Shareholder's Equity consists of two main things: The initial capitalization of the company (when the shares were first sold, plus extra share issues) and retained earnings, which is the amount of money the company has made over and above capitalization, which has not been re-distributed back to shareholders. So yes, it is the firm's total equity financing-- the initial capitalization is the equity that was put into the company when it was founded plus subsequent increases in equity due to share issues, and retained earnings is the increase in equity that has occurred since then which has not yet been re-distributed to shareholders (though it belongs to them, as the residual claimants). Both accounts are credited when they increase, because they represent an increase in cash, that is debited, so in order to make credits = debits they must be credits. (It doesn't mean that the company has that much cash on hand, as the cash will likely be re-invested). Shareholder's Equity is neither an asset nor a liability: it is used to purchase assets and to reduce liabilities, and is simply a measure of assets minus liabilities that is necessary to make the accounting equation balance: Since the book value of stocks doesn't change that often (because it represents the price the company sold it for, not the current value on the stock market, and would therefore only change when there were new share issues), almost all changes in total assets or in total liabilities are reflected in Retained Earnings." }, { "docid": "409207", "title": "", "text": "As Chris pointed out: If your expenses are covered by the income exactly, as you have said to assume, then you are basically starting with a $40K asset (your starting equity), and ending with a $200K asset (a paid for home, at the same value since you have said to ignore any appreciation). So, to determine what you have earned on the $40K you leveraged 5x, wouldn't it be a matter of computing a CAGR that gets you from $40K to $200K in 30 years? The result would be a nominal return, not a real return. So, if I set up the problem correctly, it should be: $40,000 * (1 + Return)^30 = $200,000 Then solve for Return. It works out to be about 5.51% or so." }, { "docid": "40966", "title": "", "text": "It took me a while to understand the concept, so I'll break it down as best as I can. There are three parts to the accounting equation: Assets = Liabilities + Owner's Equity We'll look at this in two ways 1. As a business owner you invest (say) 10,000 USD into your bank. The entry would be: Debit: Assets: Cash for 10,000 Credit: Owner's Equity: Contributions for 10,000 In this case, you have assets of 10,000 from your deposit, but it is due to owner contributions and not business transactions. Another example (say a sale): Debit: Assets: Cash for 10,000 Credit: Owner's Equity: Sales for 10,000 Debit: Assets: Cash for 10,000 Credit: Liabilities: Deposits for 10,000 Deposits are a banking term to reflect a bank's obligation to return the amount on demand (though the bank has free reign with it, see fractional banking) You will NEVER debit or credit your bank as it is assumed you will be storing your money there, note bank reconciliation. Hope this helps, comment with any more questions." }, { "docid": "454298", "title": "", "text": "\"You need to take an accounting course. Badly... A ponzi scheme is when you use the capital from new members/investors to pay out returns to existing/older members. It violates the basic principles of the accounting equation by operation as investors are equity holders whom you are paying returns to using the assets procured from new investors (investors give you an asset in exchange for a share of equity). Members of a ponzi scheme are investors, not creditors. In a bank, depositors are NOT investors. Depositors give you an asset (cash) in exchange for a liability (cash+interest). &gt; Does buying govt securities count as \"\"lending\"\"? Yes. If you purchase a bond, you're lending money to the issuer.\"" }, { "docid": "106070", "title": "", "text": "\"Equity is the term to make things balance. In a simple transaction, you get $100 paid to you. Income goes up by $100 and the asset of whatever bank account or petty cash drawer you put it into also goes up by $100. Equity is unchanged. If for some reason you had to take some income into your books, but no asset increased, no debt decreased, and you had no way to take an offsetting expense into your books, then this would lower your equity. How else to explain having \"\"earned\"\" $100 but having nothing to show for it?\"" }, { "docid": "172694", "title": "", "text": "\"Private equity firms have a unique structure: The general partners (GP's) of the firm create funds and manage the investments of those funds. Limited partners (LP's) contribute the capital to the funds, pay fees to the GP's, and then make money when the funds' assets grow. I believe the article is saying that ultra high net worth individuals participate in the real estate market by hiring someone to act as a general partner and manage the real estate assets. They and their friends contribute the cash and get shares in the resulting fund. Usually this GP/LP structure is used when the funds purchase or invest in private companies, which is why it is referred to as \"\"private equity structure,\"\" but the same structure can be used to purchase and manage pools of real estate or any other investment asset.\"" }, { "docid": "523303", "title": "", "text": "\"Why there is this huge difference? I am not able to reconcile Yahoo's answer of 5.75%, even using their definition for ROA of: Return on Assets Formula: Earnings from Continuing Operations / Average Total Equity This ratio shows percentage of Returns to Total Assets of the company. This is a useful measure in analyzing how well a company uses its assets to produce earnings. I suspect the \"\"Average Total Equity\"\" in their formula is a typo, but using either measure I cannot come up with 5.75% for any 12-month period. I can, however, match MarketWatch's answer by looking at the 2016 fiscal year totals and using a \"\"traditional\"\" formula of Net Income / Average Total Assets: I'm NOT saying that MatketWatch is right and Yahoo is wrong - MW is using fiscal year totals while Yahoo is using trailing 12-month numbers, and Yahoo uses \"\"Earnings from Continuing Operations\"\", but even using that number (which Yahoo calculates) I am not able to reconcile the 5.75% they give.\"" }, { "docid": "479384", "title": "", "text": "\"Institutional ownership has nearly lost all meaning. It used to mean mutual funds, investment banks, etc. Now, it means pension funds, who hold the rest of the equity assets directly, and insiders. Since the vast majority of investors in equity do not hold it directly, \"\"institutions\"\" are approaching 100% ownership on all major equities. Other sites still segment the data.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "245082", "title": "", "text": "There is no difference. When dealing with short positions, talking about percentages become very tricky since they no longer add up to 100%. What does the 50% in your example mean? Unless there's some base amount (like total amount of the portfolio, then the percentages are meaningless. What matters when dealing with long and short positions is the net total - meaning if you are long 100 shares on one stock trade and short 50 shares on another, then you are net long 50 shares." } ]

[ { "docid": "415061", "title": "", "text": "This post has been wrote in 2014, so if you read this text be aware. At the time, and since France does tax a lot investment, I'd suggest you start a PEA and filling in using the lazy investment portfolio. That means buying European and/or French ETFs & index, and hold them as long as you can. You can fill your PEA (Plan d'Epargne en Action) up to 150.000€ for a period of at least 8 years as long as you fill it with European and French stocks. After the period of 8 years your profit is taxed at only mere 15%, instead of the 33% you see in a raw broker account. Since you are young, I think a 100% stocks is something you can hold on. If you can't sleep at night with 100% stocks, take some bonds up to 25%, even more. Anyway, the younger you start investing, the more ahead you may eventually go." }, { "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": "534988", "title": "", "text": "\"Given that a poor person probably has much less to invest, how can odds be in their favor? To add to Lan's great answer, if one is \"\"poor\"\" because they don't have enough income to build wealth (invest), then there are only two ways to change the situation - earn more or spend less. Neither are easy but both are usually possible. One can take on side jobs, look for a better-paying career, etc. Cutting spending can also be hard but is generally easier than adding income. In general, wealth building is more about what you do with your income than about how much you make. Obviously the more you make, the easier it is, but just about anyone can build wealth if they spend less than they make. Once your NET income is high enough that you have investible income, THEN you can start building wealth. Unfortunately many people have piles of debts to clean up before they are able to get to that point. What could a small guy with $100 do to make himself not poor anymore, right? Just having $100 is not going to make you \"\"rich\"\". There is a practical limit to how much return you can make short of high-risk activities like gambling, lottery tickets, etc. (I have actually seen this as a justification for playing the lottery, which I disagree with but is an interesting point). If you just invest $100 at 25% per year (for illustration - traditional investments typically only make 10-12% on average), in 10 years you'll have about $931. If instead you invest $100 per month at 12% annualized, in 10 years you'll have over $23,000. Not that $23,000 makes you rich - the point is that regularly saving money is much more powerful than having money to start with.\"" }, { "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": "107819", "title": "", "text": "Private investors as mutual funds are a minority of the market. Institutional investors make up a substantial portion of the long term holdings. These include pension funds, insurance companies, and even corporations managing their money, as well as individuals rich enough to actively manage their own investments. From Business Insider, with some aggregation: Numbers don't add to 100% because of rounding. Also, I pulled insurance out of household because it's not household managed. Another source is the Tax Policy Center, which shows that about 50% of corporate stock is owned by individuals (25%) and individually managed retirement accounts (25%). Another issue is that household can be a bit confusing. While some of these may be people choosing stocks and investing their money, this also includes Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOP) and company founders. For example, Jeff Bezos owns about 17% of Amazon.com according to Wikipedia. That would show up under household even though that is not an investment account. Jeff Bezos is not going to sell his company and buy equity in an index fund. Anyway, the most generous description puts individuals as controlling about half of all stocks. Even if they switched all of that to index funds, the other half of stocks are still owned by others. In particular, about 26% is owned by institutional investors that actively manage their portfolios. In addition, day traders buy and sell stocks on a daily basis, not appearing in these numbers. Both active institutional investors and day traders would hop on misvalued stocks, either shorting the overvalued or buying the undervalued. It doesn't take that much of the market to control prices, so long as it is the active trading market. The passive market doesn't make frequent trades. They usually only need to buy or sell as money is invested or withdrawn. So while they dominate the ownership stake numbers, they are much lower on the trading volume numbers. TL;DR: there is more than enough active investment by organizations or individuals who would not switch to index funds to offset those that do. Unless that changes, this is not a big issue." }, { "docid": "36190", "title": "", "text": "First of all I recommend reading this short e-book that is aimed at young investors. The book is written for American investors but they same rules apply with different terms (e.g. the equivalent tax-free savings wrappers are called ISAs in the UK). If you don't anticipate needing the money any time soon then your best bet is likely a stocks and share ISA in an aggressive portfolio of assets. You are probably better off with an even more aggressive asset allocation than the one in the book, e.g. 0-15% bond funds 85-100% equity funds. In the long term, this will generate the most income. For an up-to-date table of brokers I recommend Monevator. If you are planning to use the money as a deposit on a mortgage then your best bet might be a Help to Buy ISA, you'll have to shop around for the best deals. If you would rather have something more liquid that you can draw into to cover expenses while at school, you can either go for a more conservative ISA (100% bond funds or even a cash ISA) or try to find a savings account with a comparable interest rate." }, { "docid": "425795", "title": "", "text": "\"I largely agree with you; but there's *no way* to make a true apples-to-apples comparison, because we've never had a \"\"flat\"\" across-the-board tax rate, and we never will. And obviously, in the degenerate cases of taxes at 0% and 100%, revenue drop to zero. Given that, the closest we can come to evaluating the potential effects of Trump's proposal is to look at what happens when major shifts in tax policy have occurred in the past; and since 1943 (when something approaching our modern tax structure first solidified)... The short answer to that is, \"\"nothing at all happens\"\". The *explanation* for that is a more interesting issue (though it boils down to \"\"if you tax X, people will Y instead\"\"), but the implications for fiscal policy are both fascinating and terrifying: Effectively, if the government spends more than 15-16% of GDP, *regardless* of how they structure taxes, they're spending against the deficit.\"" }, { "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": "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": "218747", "title": "", "text": "It is a dangerous policy not to have a balance across the terms of assets. Short term reserves should remain in short term investments because they are most likely needed in the short term. The amount can be shaved according to the probability of their respective needs, but long term asset variance usually exceed the probability of needing to use reserves. For example, replacing one month bonds paying essentially nothing with stocks that should be expected to return 9% will expose oneself to a possible sudden 50% loss. If cash is indeed so abundant that reserves can be doubled, this policy can be expected to be stable; however, cash is normally scarce. It is a risky policy to place reserves that have a 20% chance of being 100% liquidated into investments that have a 20% chance of declining by approximately 50% just for a chance of an extra 9% annual return. Financial stability should always be of primary concern with rate of return secondary only after stability has been reasonably assured." }, { "docid": "405206", "title": "", "text": "Michael gave a good answer describing the transaction but I wanted to follow up on your questions about the lender. First, the lender does charge interest on the borrowed securities. The amount of interest can vary based on a number of factors, such as who is borrowing, how much are they borrowing, and what stock are they trying to borrow. Occasionally when you are trying to short a stock you will get an error that it is hard to borrow. This could be for a few reasons, such as there are already a large amount of people who have shorted your broker's shares, or your broker never acquired the shares to begin with (which usually only happens on very small stocks). In both cases the broker/lender doesnt have enough shares and may be unwilling to get more. In that way they are discriminating on what they lend. If a company is about to go bankrupt and a lender doesnt have any more shares to lend out, it is unlikely they will purchase more as they stand to lose a lot and gain very little. It might seem like lending is a risky business but think of it as occurring over decades and not months. General Motors had been around for 100 years before it went bankrupt, so any lender who had owned and been lending out GM shares for a fraction of that time likely still profited. Also this is all very simplified. JoeTaxpayer alluded to this in the comments but in actuality who is lending stock or even who owns stock is much more complicated and probably doesnt need to be explained here. I just wanted to show in this over-simplified explanation that lending is not as risky as it may first seem." }, { "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": "472340", "title": "", "text": "like I said to the others do a remind me. I am not trying to hate on you or your views but facebook is not the future not even close they won;t survive because the vision of facebook is heavily flawed. Also GoPro being worth HALF what is with in 5 years only shows your lack of research into the company and to what I said. I also said that the money I made was essentially a drop in the bucket of what I wanted to invest but I held back heavily because of the type of companies they are and what the stocks show. The fact I made what I did on what little i put in is, well awesome. No I am not a billionaire but I am rather good at picking short and middle to long term well and have done well with it. My only fault is I don't trust my own judgement enough. I am sorry you think Snap Chat is a bad long term investment because in 5 years it will be over 100 a share. I don't expect you to take or trust the advice from a random person online but you talk like you actually know which you don't and that is ok. I just gave my opinion which I have zero doubt will pan out but that is the beauty of it!" }, { "docid": "486421", "title": "", "text": "\"I like this explanation the best. EV is trying to get at the value of the underlying business, excluding the capital structure you currently have on the company. If your lemonade stand is worth $100, but the business also comes with $50 in cash lying around (and no debt), then the EV is $100. But the price you'd pay the owner (the \"\"market cap\"\") is $150, because it's like you get an immediate cash rebate.\"" }, { "docid": "519963", "title": "", "text": "I don't think it has to be either-or. You can profitably invest inside the SIMPLE. (Though I wouldn't put in any more than the 1% it takes to get the match.) Let's look at some scenarios. These assume salary of $50k/year so the numbers are easy. You can fill in your own numbers to see the outcome, but the percentages will be the same. Let it sit in cash in the SIMPLE. You put in 1%, your employer matches with 1%. Your account balance is $1,000 (at the end of the year), plus a small amount of interest. Cost to you is $500 from your gross pay. 100% return on your contributions, yay! Likely 0-1% real returns going forward; you'll be lucky to keep up with inflation over the long term. Short term not so bad. Buy shares of index ETFs in the SIMPLE; let's assume the fee works out to 10%. You put in 1%, employer matches 1%. Your contributions are $500, fees are $100, your balance is $900 in ETFs. 80% instant return, and possible 6-7% real long term returns going forward. Buy funds in the SIMPLE; assume the load is 5%, management fee is 1% and you can find something that behaves like an index fund (so it is theoretically comparable to above). 1% from you, 1% from employer. Your contributions are $500, load fees are $50, your balance is $950. 90% instant return, and possible 5-6% real long term returns going forward (assuming the 6-7% real returns of equities are reduced by the 1% management fee). (You didn't list out the fees, and they're probably different for the different fund choices, so fill in your own details and do the math.) Invest outside the SIMPLE in the same ETFs or equivalent no load index funds; let's assume you can do this with no fees. You put in the same 1% of your gross (ignoring any difference that might come from paying FICA) into a self directed traditional IRA. At the end of the year the balance is $500. So deciding whether or not to take the match is a no brainer: take it. Deciding whether you should hold cash, ETFs, or (one of two types of) funds in your SIMPLE is a little trickier." }, { "docid": "207325", "title": "", "text": "Simple math: 50-25=25, hence decline from 50 to 25 is a 50% decline (you lose half), while an advance from 25 to 50 is 100% gain (you gain 100%, double your 25 to 50). Their point is that if you have more upswings than downswings - you'll gain more on long positions during upswings than on short positions during downswings on average. Again - simple math." }, { "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": "499331", "title": "", "text": "This essentially depends on how you prefer to measure your performance. I will just give a few simple examples to start. Let me know if you're looking for something more. If you just want to achieve maximum $ return, then you should always use maximum margin, so long as your expected return (%) is higher than your cost to borrow. For example, suppose you can use margin to double your investment, and the cost to borrow is 7%. If you're investing in some security that expects to return 10%, then your annual return on an account opened with $100 is: (2 * $100 * 10% - $100 * 7%) / $100 = 13% So, you see the expected return, amount of leverage, and cost to borrow will all factor in to your return. Suppose you want to also account for the additional risk you're incurring. Then you could use the Sharpe Ratio. For example, suppose the same security has volatility of 20%, and the risk free rate is 5%. Then the Sharpe Ratio without leverage is: (10% - 5%) / 20% = 0.25 The Sharpe Ratio using maximum margin is then: (13% - 5%) / (2 * 20%) = 0.2, where the 13% comes from the above formula. So on a risk-adjusted basis, it's better not to utilize margin in this particular example." }, { "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": "419897", "title": "", "text": "If you mean the percentages of long/short positions within a mutual fund or ETF, then it's a percentage of the total value of the fund portfolio. In that case, positions of 50% in X, -50% in Y are not the same as 100% in X, -100% in Y. If the long and short positions are both for the same asset, then, as D Stanley mentions, all that matters is the net position. If you're equally long and short X, then the net position is always 0%." } ]

[ { "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": "182272", "title": "", "text": "Here's a simple example for a put, from both sides. Assume XYZ stock trades at $200 right now. Let's say John writes a $190 out of the money put on XYZ stock and sells this put to Abby for the premium, which is say $5. Assume the strike date, or date of settlement, is 6 months from now. Thus Abby is long one put option and John is short one put option (the writer of the option is short the option). On settlement date, let's assume two different scenarios: (1) If the price of the stock decreases by $50, then the put that Abby bought is 'in the money'. Abby's profit can be calculated as being strike price 190 - current stock price 150 - premium paid 5 = $35 So not including any transaction fees, that is a $35 dollar return on a $5 investment. (2) If the price of the stock increases by $50, then the put that Abby bought is worthless and her loss was 100%, or her entire $5 premium. For John, he made $5 in 6 months (in reality you need collateral and good credit to be able to write sizable option positions)." }, { "docid": "305770", "title": "", "text": "Options can have a negligible time premium. For American1 calls the time premium is never negative. If it had a negative premium it would be profitable to exercise it immediately. A deep in the money call has a delta of exactly one. That is, it's price movements completely mirror the price movements of the underlying stock. That means an option seller can buy stock and completely hedge his short option position. The seller of the option may be in an position to buy with very little margin and take your money and invest it. For example, consider a stock trading at $7.50, with its January 2014 $4 call option trading at $3.50. For one option, representing 100 shares, a trader could take your 350 dollars and invest it, and only use a small portion of the money to buy the stock on margin. Market-makers can typically borrow money at very low interest rates. If you have high borrowing costs, or are unable to buy on margin, then buying deep in the money calls can be a good strategy. Long story short, option sellers are making money off selling these deep in the money calls even with almost zero time premium. So, in general, there's no way to make money by buying them. 1. An American call is a call that can be exercised at any time up to and including its expiration date." }, { "docid": "342462", "title": "", "text": "You are likely thinking of a individual variable insurance contract (IVIC) , better known as a segregated fund, or a principal-protected note (PPN). For a segregated fund, to get a full guarantee on invested capital, you need a 100/100 where the maturity value and death benefit are each 100% guaranteed. The PPN works similar to a long-term GIC (or CD) with a variable investment component. The thing is, neither of these things are cheap and the cost structure that is built in behind them makes it difficult to make any real above market rates of return. In both cases, if you try to break the contracts early then the guarantees are null and void and you get out what you get out." }, { "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": "332069", "title": "", "text": "One reason might be the 100% margin requirement on long options. Suppose I want to go long AAPL. I could get a deep ITM call or buy shares. $12,700 for 100 shares, with it's 25% margin requirement is like around $3200 locked up cash. Combine with a deep OTM Jan 2017 $70 strike put for $188, would give a $3400 margin requirement to enter the trade. or I could be in the JAN 2017 $70 strike for nearer $5800, but with a 100% margin requirement due to being a long call. So (3400/5800) = 59% increase in margin requirement for Deep ITM calls. Plus long term the shares will pay dividends, while a LEAP CALL does not." }, { "docid": "290647", "title": "", "text": "If you're looking for a purely financial answer (ignoring the social/environmental aspects) there are a few different ways you can look at it. For these types of improvements the simplest is a payback calculation. How long would it take you to recoup the initial costs? For example, if the entire installation cost $5,000 (including any tax credits), and you save $100 per month (I'm making both numbers up), you'll pay back your investment in 50 months, or about 4 years. (Note that if you borrow money to do the improvement, then your payback period is longer because you're reducing the amount that you're saving each month by paying interest.) If you're deciding between different uses for the money (like investing, or paying down other debt) then you can look at the return that you're getting. Using the same example, you are spending $5,000 and getting $100 per month back, for a 24% annual return ($1,200 / $5,000), which is better than you can get on almost anything but a 401(k) match (meaning don't stop your 401(k) contributions to do this either). The decision on whether or wait or not then becomes - will the price drop faster than the amount of savings you will realize. So if you will save $100 per month in your electric bill, is the price of the complete installation going down by more than $100 each month? If not, you'd be better off buying now and start paying back the investment sooner." }, { "docid": "32290", "title": "", "text": "Depends on the stock involved, but for the most part brokerages allow you gain entry at 50%, meaning you can short twice the cash on hand you have. Going forward, you need to maintain 30%, so on a $10,000 short, you'd have to maintain $3000 in your account. Example, an account with $5000 cash - You can short $10,000 securities. Let say 100 shares of xyz at $100 per share. After trade settles, you won't receive a margin call until your balance falls to $3000, probably right around the time xyz rises to $120 per share. Riskier stocks will have higher margin maintenance requirements - leveraged vehicles like FAS/FAZ (triple leveraged) require 90% margin (3x30%) if they are allowed to be 'shorted' at all." }, { "docid": "405206", "title": "", "text": "Michael gave a good answer describing the transaction but I wanted to follow up on your questions about the lender. First, the lender does charge interest on the borrowed securities. The amount of interest can vary based on a number of factors, such as who is borrowing, how much are they borrowing, and what stock are they trying to borrow. Occasionally when you are trying to short a stock you will get an error that it is hard to borrow. This could be for a few reasons, such as there are already a large amount of people who have shorted your broker's shares, or your broker never acquired the shares to begin with (which usually only happens on very small stocks). In both cases the broker/lender doesnt have enough shares and may be unwilling to get more. In that way they are discriminating on what they lend. If a company is about to go bankrupt and a lender doesnt have any more shares to lend out, it is unlikely they will purchase more as they stand to lose a lot and gain very little. It might seem like lending is a risky business but think of it as occurring over decades and not months. General Motors had been around for 100 years before it went bankrupt, so any lender who had owned and been lending out GM shares for a fraction of that time likely still profited. Also this is all very simplified. JoeTaxpayer alluded to this in the comments but in actuality who is lending stock or even who owns stock is much more complicated and probably doesnt need to be explained here. I just wanted to show in this over-simplified explanation that lending is not as risky as it may first seem." }, { "docid": "71611", "title": "", "text": "Get used to it. This trend won't change while investors are 100% focused on quarterly results at the expense of long-term investment and growth strategies from companies. Successful businesses that don't need a large capital injection will stay the course knowing that in mid to long-term their net worth will be higher." }, { "docid": "189190", "title": "", "text": "\"Chris - you realize that when you buy a stock, the seller gets the money, not the company itself, unless of course, you bought IPO shares. And the amount you'd own would be such a small portion of the company, they don't know you exist. As far as morals go, if you wish to avoid certain stocks for this reason, look at the Socially Responsible funds that are out there. There are also funds that are targeted to certain religions and avoid alcohol and tobacco. The other choice is to invest in individual stocks which for the small investor is very tough and expensive. You'll spend more money to avoid the shares than these very shares are worth. Your proposal is interesting but impractical. In a portfolio of say $100K in the S&P, the bottom 400 stocks are disproportionately smaller amounts of money in those shares than the top 100. So we're talking $100 or less. You'd need to short 2 or 3 shares. Even at $1M in that fund, 20-30 shares shorted is pretty silly, no offense. Why not 'do the math' and during the year you purchase the fund, donate the amount you own in the \"\"bad\"\" companies to charity. And what littleadv said - that too.\"" }, { "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": "425795", "title": "", "text": "\"I largely agree with you; but there's *no way* to make a true apples-to-apples comparison, because we've never had a \"\"flat\"\" across-the-board tax rate, and we never will. And obviously, in the degenerate cases of taxes at 0% and 100%, revenue drop to zero. Given that, the closest we can come to evaluating the potential effects of Trump's proposal is to look at what happens when major shifts in tax policy have occurred in the past; and since 1943 (when something approaching our modern tax structure first solidified)... The short answer to that is, \"\"nothing at all happens\"\". The *explanation* for that is a more interesting issue (though it boils down to \"\"if you tax X, people will Y instead\"\"), but the implications for fiscal policy are both fascinating and terrifying: Effectively, if the government spends more than 15-16% of GDP, *regardless* of how they structure taxes, they're spending against the deficit.\"" }, { "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": "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": "79083", "title": "", "text": "\"All right, I will try to take this nice and slow. This is going to be a little long; try to bear with me. Suppose you contribute $100 to your newly opened 401(k). You now have $100 in cash and $0 in mutual funds in your 401(k) (and $100 less than you used to somewhere else). At some later date, you use that money within the 401(k) to buy a single share of the Acme World All-Market Index Fund which happens to trade at exactly $100 per share on the day your purchase goes through. As a result, you have $0 in cash and exactly one share of that fund (corresponding to $100) within your 401(k). Some time later, the price of the fund is up 10%, so your share is now worth $110. Since you haven't contributed anything more to your 401(k) for whatever reason, your cash holding is still $0. Because your holding is really denominated in shares of this mutual fund, of which you still have exactly one, the cash equivalent of your holding is now $110. Now, you can basically do one of two things: By selling the share, you protect against it falling in price, thus in a sense \"\"locking in\"\" your gain. But where do you put the money instead? You obviously can't put the money in anything else that might fall in price; doing so would mean that you could lose a portion of your gains. The only way to truly \"\"lock in\"\" a gain is to remove the money from your investment portfolio altogether. Roughly speaking, that means withdrawing the money and spending it. (And then you have to consider if the value of what you spent the money on can fluctuate, and as a consequence, fall. What's the value of that three weeks old jug of milk in the back of your refrigerator?) The beauty of compounding is that it doesn't care when you bought an investment. Let's say that you kept the original fund, which was at $110. Now, since that day, it is up another 5%. Since we are looking at the change of price of the fund over some period of time, that's 5% of $110, not 5% of the $100 you bought at (which was an arbitrary point, anyway). 5% of $110 is $5.50, which means that the value of your holding is now at $115.50 from a gain first of 10% followed by another 5%. If at the same day when the original fund was at $110 you buy another $100 worth of it, the additional 5% gain is realized on the sum of the two at the time of the purchase, or $210. Thus after the additional 5% gain, you would have not $210 (($100 + $100) + 5%), nor $205 (($100 + 5%) + $100), but $220.50 (($110 + $100) + 5%). See how you don't need to do anything in particular to realize the beauty of compounding growth? There is one exception to the above. Some investments pay out dividends, interest or equivalent in cash equivalents. (Basically, deposit money into an account of yours somewhere; in the case of retirement plans, usually within the same container where you are holding the investment. These dividends are generally not counted against your contribution limits, but check the relevant legal texts if you want to be absolutely certain.) This is somewhat uncommon in mutual funds, but very common in other investments such as stocks or bonds that you purchase directly (which you really should not do if you are just starting out and/or feel the need to ask this type of question). In that case, you need to place a purchase order yourself for whatever you want to invest the dividend in. If you don't, then the extra money of the dividend will not be growing along with your original investment.\"" }, { "docid": "519963", "title": "", "text": "I don't think it has to be either-or. You can profitably invest inside the SIMPLE. (Though I wouldn't put in any more than the 1% it takes to get the match.) Let's look at some scenarios. These assume salary of $50k/year so the numbers are easy. You can fill in your own numbers to see the outcome, but the percentages will be the same. Let it sit in cash in the SIMPLE. You put in 1%, your employer matches with 1%. Your account balance is $1,000 (at the end of the year), plus a small amount of interest. Cost to you is $500 from your gross pay. 100% return on your contributions, yay! Likely 0-1% real returns going forward; you'll be lucky to keep up with inflation over the long term. Short term not so bad. Buy shares of index ETFs in the SIMPLE; let's assume the fee works out to 10%. You put in 1%, employer matches 1%. Your contributions are $500, fees are $100, your balance is $900 in ETFs. 80% instant return, and possible 6-7% real long term returns going forward. Buy funds in the SIMPLE; assume the load is 5%, management fee is 1% and you can find something that behaves like an index fund (so it is theoretically comparable to above). 1% from you, 1% from employer. Your contributions are $500, load fees are $50, your balance is $950. 90% instant return, and possible 5-6% real long term returns going forward (assuming the 6-7% real returns of equities are reduced by the 1% management fee). (You didn't list out the fees, and they're probably different for the different fund choices, so fill in your own details and do the math.) Invest outside the SIMPLE in the same ETFs or equivalent no load index funds; let's assume you can do this with no fees. You put in the same 1% of your gross (ignoring any difference that might come from paying FICA) into a self directed traditional IRA. At the end of the year the balance is $500. So deciding whether or not to take the match is a no brainer: take it. Deciding whether you should hold cash, ETFs, or (one of two types of) funds in your SIMPLE is a little trickier." }, { "docid": "593475", "title": "", "text": "There are more than a few ideas here. Assuming you are in the U.S., here are a few approaches: First, DRIPs: Dividend Reinvestment Plans. DRIP Investing: How To Actually Invest Only A Hundred Dollars Per Month notes: I have received many requests from readers that want to invest in individual stocks, but only have the available funds to put aside $50 to $100 into a particular company. For these investors, keeping costs to a minimum is absolutely crucial. I have often made allusions and references to DRIP Investing, but I have never offered an explanation as to how to logistically set up DRIP accounts. Today, I will attempt to do that. A second option, Sharebuilder, is a broker that will allow for fractional shares. A third option are mutual funds. Though, these often will have minimums but may be waived in some cases if you sign up with an automatic investment plan. List of mutual fund companies to research. Something else to consider here is what kind of account do you want to have? There can be accounts for specific purposes like education, e.g. a college or university fund, or a retirement plan. 529 Plans exist for college savings that may be worth noting so be aware of which kinds of accounts may make sense for what you want here." }, { "docid": "92201", "title": "", "text": "Yes timing does matter. Using a simple Rate of Change indicator over the past 100 days and smoothed out with a 50 day Moving Average, I have plotted the S&P 500 since the start of 2007. The idea is to buy when the ROC indicator crosses above the zero line and sell when the ROC indicator crosses below the zero line. I have compared the results below of timing the markets from the start of 2007 to dollar cost averaging starting from the start of 2007 and investing every 6 months. $80k is invested in both cases. For the timing the market option $80k was invested at the start of 2007, then the total figure was sold out when a sell signal was given, then the total amount reinvested when a new buy signal was given. For the DCA option $5000 was invested every 6 months starting from the start of 2007 until the last investment at the start of July 2014. The results are below: Timing the markets results in more than double the returns (not including dividends and brokerage). Edit It has been brought up that I haven't considered tax in my Timing the Market option. So I have updated my timing the market spread-sheet to take into account both long-term and short-term CGT in the USA for someone on the highest tax bracket. The results are below: The result is still almost a 2x higher returns for the timing the markets option. Also note that even with the DCA option you will have to sell one day and pay CGT on any profits there. However, the real danger with the DCA option is if you need to sell during a market downturn and not make any profits at all." } ]

[ { "docid": "99131", "title": "", "text": "\"When portfolio positions are reported in percentages, those percentages are relative to the portfolio's base equity. When you start out, that is equal to the cash you have in a portfolio. Later it's the net equity of the portfolio (i.e., how much money you could withdraw if you were to exit all your positions). If you put $5,000 into your account and are long and short 50%, then you are long $2,500 and short $2,500. If it's 100% and -100%, then long and short $5,000. \"\"Leverage\"\" is often computed gross (as if all positions were long). So if you have 100% and -100%, then your broker may say you are \"\"levered 2 to 1.\"\" That is, your gross exposure is twice as large as your underlying base equity.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "182272", "title": "", "text": "Here's a simple example for a put, from both sides. Assume XYZ stock trades at $200 right now. Let's say John writes a $190 out of the money put on XYZ stock and sells this put to Abby for the premium, which is say $5. Assume the strike date, or date of settlement, is 6 months from now. Thus Abby is long one put option and John is short one put option (the writer of the option is short the option). On settlement date, let's assume two different scenarios: (1) If the price of the stock decreases by $50, then the put that Abby bought is 'in the money'. Abby's profit can be calculated as being strike price 190 - current stock price 150 - premium paid 5 = $35 So not including any transaction fees, that is a $35 dollar return on a $5 investment. (2) If the price of the stock increases by $50, then the put that Abby bought is worthless and her loss was 100%, or her entire $5 premium. For John, he made $5 in 6 months (in reality you need collateral and good credit to be able to write sizable option positions)." }, { "docid": "495473", "title": "", "text": "\"an account balance is your total in the account. The word balance means \"\"to be equal\"\". The use in finance stem from accounting. However you do not need to know why its called a balance to understand that a balance is equal to something. IE: your \"\"account balance\"\" is your total account weather its savings, electric bill, or investment portfolio. A position in your investment portfolio is what you are invested in. IE: If I went 100 shares long(I bought) Apple then I have a 100 share position in Apple. Your position is added to your account balance within your investment portfolio.\"" }, { "docid": "499331", "title": "", "text": "This essentially depends on how you prefer to measure your performance. I will just give a few simple examples to start. Let me know if you're looking for something more. If you just want to achieve maximum $ return, then you should always use maximum margin, so long as your expected return (%) is higher than your cost to borrow. For example, suppose you can use margin to double your investment, and the cost to borrow is 7%. If you're investing in some security that expects to return 10%, then your annual return on an account opened with $100 is: (2 * $100 * 10% - $100 * 7%) / $100 = 13% So, you see the expected return, amount of leverage, and cost to borrow will all factor in to your return. Suppose you want to also account for the additional risk you're incurring. Then you could use the Sharpe Ratio. For example, suppose the same security has volatility of 20%, and the risk free rate is 5%. Then the Sharpe Ratio without leverage is: (10% - 5%) / 20% = 0.25 The Sharpe Ratio using maximum margin is then: (13% - 5%) / (2 * 20%) = 0.2, where the 13% comes from the above formula. So on a risk-adjusted basis, it's better not to utilize margin in this particular example." }, { "docid": "549290", "title": "", "text": "I would not advise this for two reasons: Your point that the investment could be lower at the end of the 3 years is a concern, although with a safe investment, it is less so, but this reduces the potential gain. While your interest is not gaining interest, your interest charged is based on the principal. If you pay off the loans, you reduce the principal and therefore you pay less interest in the long run, even if the interest isn't capitalized. All that this means is that you are basically being charged simple interest as opposed to compounding interest, but reducing the principal helps in either case. You are mistaken about the benefits of the tax deduction. You reduce your tax bill by the marginal rate times the student loan interest you paid for the year. So if you are in the 15% tax bracket and paid $100 in interest, you save $15. This is not a reason to keep the loans (because you have to pay $100 to get $15), but you are mistaken on the benefit, it has nothing to do with shifting the tax brackets. Also, speaking of taxes, don't forget that you pay taxes on investment gains." }, { "docid": "260676", "title": "", "text": "\"What exactly is \"\"Call Protection\"\"? Is \"\"NO\"\" normal for a CD? A \"\"callable\"\" cd (or one without protection can be revoked before maturity by the issuer. For example, if interest rates drop they might recall the CD since they can borrow money at a lower rate. A callable CD should offer a better return in exchange for this. Is \"\"first coupon date\"\" the first time it actually pays interest? Yes. Given that the first coupon date is in 6 months, and it's semiannual, is it fair to assume that this pays every six months? Yes Given that the maturity date is 9/29/2025, this is really a 15-year CD, right? It depends. CDs can be resold on the market. So it is AT LEAST a 15 year CD. It could also be a 20 year CD originally issued in 2005. What does \"\"Price (Ask)\"\" mean? It says 100 - does that mean you buy in chunks of $100? Yes. More accurately, they are $100 per CD. What is \"\"Yield to Worst (Ask)\"\"? Is this the worst yield that this CD will return? The lowest potential yield that can be received on a bond without the issuer actually defaulting. 3.25% is the best yield I've seen from something as stable as a CD. Would it be silly, though, to lock money up in an investment like this for 15 years? There is no way to really say without a crystal ball. If you aren't willing to accept more risk and think that interest rates will remain at these historic lows for a long while, then it is probably a good deal. If you think interest rates are due to go up substantially, then it is probably smarter to ladder your investments in shorter term CDs. In investment circles this is known as \"\"Interest Rate Risk\"\"\"" }, { "docid": "259708", "title": "", "text": "&gt; Not when 100 people apply for a receptionist job with 20 graduates in the mix. How is a tax credit that encourages business owners to hire the long term unemployeed going to do anything to fix this problem? Such a tax credit isn't going to create opportunity for businesses to hire more people. It's just going to shift employment opportunities from the employed and short-term unemployed to the long-term unemployed. Where is the value in this proposition?" }, { "docid": "71611", "title": "", "text": "Get used to it. This trend won't change while investors are 100% focused on quarterly results at the expense of long-term investment and growth strategies from companies. Successful businesses that don't need a large capital injection will stay the course knowing that in mid to long-term their net worth will be higher." }, { "docid": "332069", "title": "", "text": "One reason might be the 100% margin requirement on long options. Suppose I want to go long AAPL. I could get a deep ITM call or buy shares. $12,700 for 100 shares, with it's 25% margin requirement is like around $3200 locked up cash. Combine with a deep OTM Jan 2017 $70 strike put for $188, would give a $3400 margin requirement to enter the trade. or I could be in the JAN 2017 $70 strike for nearer $5800, but with a 100% margin requirement due to being a long call. So (3400/5800) = 59% increase in margin requirement for Deep ITM calls. Plus long term the shares will pay dividends, while a LEAP CALL does not." }, { "docid": "207325", "title": "", "text": "Simple math: 50-25=25, hence decline from 50 to 25 is a 50% decline (you lose half), while an advance from 25 to 50 is 100% gain (you gain 100%, double your 25 to 50). Their point is that if you have more upswings than downswings - you'll gain more on long positions during upswings than on short positions during downswings on average. Again - simple math." }, { "docid": "534988", "title": "", "text": "\"Given that a poor person probably has much less to invest, how can odds be in their favor? To add to Lan's great answer, if one is \"\"poor\"\" because they don't have enough income to build wealth (invest), then there are only two ways to change the situation - earn more or spend less. Neither are easy but both are usually possible. One can take on side jobs, look for a better-paying career, etc. Cutting spending can also be hard but is generally easier than adding income. In general, wealth building is more about what you do with your income than about how much you make. Obviously the more you make, the easier it is, but just about anyone can build wealth if they spend less than they make. Once your NET income is high enough that you have investible income, THEN you can start building wealth. Unfortunately many people have piles of debts to clean up before they are able to get to that point. What could a small guy with $100 do to make himself not poor anymore, right? Just having $100 is not going to make you \"\"rich\"\". There is a practical limit to how much return you can make short of high-risk activities like gambling, lottery tickets, etc. (I have actually seen this as a justification for playing the lottery, which I disagree with but is an interesting point). If you just invest $100 at 25% per year (for illustration - traditional investments typically only make 10-12% on average), in 10 years you'll have about $931. If instead you invest $100 per month at 12% annualized, in 10 years you'll have over $23,000. Not that $23,000 makes you rich - the point is that regularly saving money is much more powerful than having money to start with.\"" }, { "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": "92201", "title": "", "text": "Yes timing does matter. Using a simple Rate of Change indicator over the past 100 days and smoothed out with a 50 day Moving Average, I have plotted the S&P 500 since the start of 2007. The idea is to buy when the ROC indicator crosses above the zero line and sell when the ROC indicator crosses below the zero line. I have compared the results below of timing the markets from the start of 2007 to dollar cost averaging starting from the start of 2007 and investing every 6 months. $80k is invested in both cases. For the timing the market option $80k was invested at the start of 2007, then the total figure was sold out when a sell signal was given, then the total amount reinvested when a new buy signal was given. For the DCA option $5000 was invested every 6 months starting from the start of 2007 until the last investment at the start of July 2014. The results are below: Timing the markets results in more than double the returns (not including dividends and brokerage). Edit It has been brought up that I haven't considered tax in my Timing the Market option. So I have updated my timing the market spread-sheet to take into account both long-term and short-term CGT in the USA for someone on the highest tax bracket. The results are below: The result is still almost a 2x higher returns for the timing the markets option. Also note that even with the DCA option you will have to sell one day and pay CGT on any profits there. However, the real danger with the DCA option is if you need to sell during a market downturn and not make any profits at all." }, { "docid": "466995", "title": "", "text": "What you have to remember is you are buying a piece of the company. Think of it in terms of buying a business. Just like a business, you need to decide how long you are willing to wait to get paid back for your investment. Imagine you were trying to sell your lemonade stand. This year your earnings will be $100, next year will be $110, the year after that $120 and so on. Would you be willing to sell it for $100?" }, { "docid": "197389", "title": "", "text": "Let's suppose your friend gave your $100 and you invested all of it (plus your own money, $500) into one stock. Therefore, the total investment becomes $100 + $500 = $600. After few months, when you want to sell the stock or give back the money to your friend, check the percentage of profit/loss. So, let's assume you get 10% return on total investment of $600. Now, you have two choices. Either you exit the stock entirely, OR you just sell his portion. If you want to exit, sell everything and go home with $600 + 10% of 600 = $660. Out of $660, give you friend his initial capital + 10% of initial capital. Therefore, your friend will get $100 + 10% of $100 = $110. If you choose the later, to sell his portion, then you'll need to work everything opposite. Take his initial capital and add 10% of initial capital to it; which is $100 + 10% of $100 = $110. Sell the stocks that would be worth equivalent to that money and that's it. Similarly, you can apply the same logic if you broke his $100 into parts. Do the maths." }, { "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": "593475", "title": "", "text": "There are more than a few ideas here. Assuming you are in the U.S., here are a few approaches: First, DRIPs: Dividend Reinvestment Plans. DRIP Investing: How To Actually Invest Only A Hundred Dollars Per Month notes: I have received many requests from readers that want to invest in individual stocks, but only have the available funds to put aside $50 to $100 into a particular company. For these investors, keeping costs to a minimum is absolutely crucial. I have often made allusions and references to DRIP Investing, but I have never offered an explanation as to how to logistically set up DRIP accounts. Today, I will attempt to do that. A second option, Sharebuilder, is a broker that will allow for fractional shares. A third option are mutual funds. Though, these often will have minimums but may be waived in some cases if you sign up with an automatic investment plan. List of mutual fund companies to research. Something else to consider here is what kind of account do you want to have? There can be accounts for specific purposes like education, e.g. a college or university fund, or a retirement plan. 529 Plans exist for college savings that may be worth noting so be aware of which kinds of accounts may make sense for what you want here." }, { "docid": "185123", "title": "", "text": "\"Well.... If you have alllll your money invested, and then there's a financial crisis, and there's a personal crisis at the same time (e.g. you lose your job) then you're in big trouble. You might not have enough money to cover your bills while you find a new job. You could lose your house, ruin your credit, or something icky like that. Think 2008. Even if there's not a financial crisis, if the money is in a tax-sheltered retirement account then withdrawing it will incur ugly penalities. Now, after you've got an emergency fund established, things are different. If you could probably ride out six to twelve months with your general-purpose savings, then with the money you are investing for the long term (retirement) there's no reason you shouldn't invest 100% of the money in stocks. The difference is that you're not going to come back for that money in 6 months, you're going to come back for it in 40 years. As for retirement savings over the long term, though, I don't think it's a good idea to think of your money in those terms. If you ever lose 100% of your money on the stock market while you've invested in diversified instruments like S&P500 index funds, you're probably screwed one way or another because that represents the core industrial base of the US economy, and you'll have better things to worry about, like looking for a used shotgun. Myself, I prefer to give the suggestion \"\"don't invest any money in stocks if you're going to need to take it out in the next 5 years or so\"\" because you generally shouldn't be worried about a 100% loss of all the money in stocks your retirement accounts nearly so much as you should be worried about weathering large, medium-term setbacks, like the dot-com bubble crash and the 2008 financial crisis. I save the \"\"don't invest money unless you can afford to lose it all\"\" advice for highly speculative instruments like gold futures or social-media IPOs. Remember also that while you might lose a lot of your money on the stock market, your savings accounts and bonds will earn you pathetic amounts by comparison, which you will slowly lose to inflation. If you've had your money invested for decades then even during a crash you may still be coming out ahead relative to bonds.\"" }, { "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": "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": "263955", "title": "", "text": "\"This is basically martingale, which there is a lot of research on. Basically in bets that have positive expected value such as inflation hedged assets this works better over the long term, than bets that have negative expected value such as table games at casinos. But remember, whatever your analysis is: The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent. Things that can disrupt your solvency are things such as options expiration, limitations of a company's ability to stay afloat, limitations in a company's ability to stay listed on an exchange, limitations on your borrowings and interest payments, a finite amount of capital you can ever acquire (which means there is a limited amount of times you can double down). Best to get out of the losers and free up capital for the winners. If your \"\"trade\"\" turned into an \"\"investment\"\", ditch it. Don't get married to positions.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "3817", "title": "", "text": "This is a good reminder for investors to be skeptical of M&amp;A with respect to shareholder value creation. &gt; S&amp;P Global Market Intelligence Quantamental Research, a research arm of the ratings agency, has updated a study on the impact of deals on the acquiring company’s share price. The study looked at M&amp;A deals done by listed companies in America’s Russell 3000 index between January 2001 and August 2017; deals were only included if they cost more than 5% of the total enterprise value of the acquirer (5% of the equity value, for financial companies). The acquirers’ shares underperformed the market ([see chart](https://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/640-width/images/print-edition/20171007_FNC817_1.png)) and those of rival firms in the same industry." }, { "docid": "324994", "title": "", "text": "There are specific cases where you are required to use ADS: Required use of ADS. You must use ADS for the following property. Listed property used 50% or less in a qualified business use. See chapter 5 for information on listed property. Any tangible property used predominantly outside the United States during the year. Any tax-exempt use property. Any tax-exempt bond-financed property. All property used predominantly in a farming business and placed in service in any tax year during which an election not to apply the uniform capitalization rules to certain farming costs is in effect. Any property imported from a foreign country for which an Executive Order is in effect because the country maintains trade restrictions or engages in other discriminatory acts. See publication 946. If none of those apply to your property - you may elect ADS. Why would you elect ADS when you're not required to use it? If you can't think of a reason, then don't elect it. For most people the shorter the depreciation period - the more they can deduct (or accumulate in passive losses) each year, and that is usually the desirable case. If you plan on selling in 10 years, keep in mind the depreciation recapture and consider whether the passive losses (offsetting regular income) are worth the extra tax in this case." }, { "docid": "139833", "title": "", "text": "\"You have absolutely no concept of a business plan if you think 30-50 pages is going to be read. I have to agree with the guy you called an idiot, this whole thing is a pipe dream and your idea has either been done and failed or you haven't done the research to see that it's already a thing. Your friend has no concept of what a patent is and you have no idea how businesses are run if you're \"\"rough estimate\"\" is 2-3 *million dollars*. I have a feeling you have no concept of the value of a million dollars to begin with. Scrap this bullshit idea, go start a lemonade stand or something and get an idea of what business is before you go spouting off shit like this. You sound like a stupid kid.\"" }, { "docid": "20810", "title": "", "text": "\"I found an answer by Peter Selinger, in two articles, Tutorial on multiple currency accounting (June 2005, Jan 2011) and the accompanying Multiple currency accounting in GnuCash (June 2005, Feb 2007). Selinger embraces the currency neutrality I'm after. His method uses \"\"[a]n account that is denominated as a difference of multiple currencies... known as a currency trading account.\"\" Currency trading accounts show the gain or loss based on exchange rates at any moment. Apparently GnuCash 2.3.9 added support for multi-currency accounting. I haven't tried this myself. This feature is not enabled by default, and must be turned on explicity. To do so, check \"\"Use Trading Accounts\"\" under File -> Properties -> Accounts. This must be done on a per-file basis. Thanks to Mike Alexander, who implemented this feature in 2007, and worked for over 3 years to convince the GnuCash developers to include it. Older versions of GnuCash, such as 1.8.11, apparently had a feature called \"\"Currency Trading Accounts\"\", but they behaved differently than Selinger's method.\"" }, { "docid": "543199", "title": "", "text": "I have won a large amount of money on an online casino. How reputed is the company? Have you done any research around it? It has taken 2 months for me to see any payouts. Last week I received $2300 check from them. Did you win everything in the same period? If so there is no reason why they sent you a smaller check of $2300 instead of the full amount. This should raise a red flag. Why would someone write multiple checks. The only valid reason is you won in different months. The payout for first month was $2300 and they sent a check. The payout for next month is large amount ... the request for Bank Details. that they would rather wire me the money and they are asking for my banking account number and routing number. Although giving bank account number and routing has some risks. This is the fundamental information that is need to make a credit to your account directly. You would be giving this to quite a few entities / people. In most countries, this information is printed on every check that you write from your account. Is this safe? Or am I stupid for even considering this? Online world is full of traps and this could be a scam. So proceed with extreme caution. Insist of check. In worst case open a different savings account, that does not allow direct debits, does not have over draft, etc. Use this to receive money and move it into your regular account." }, { "docid": "194437", "title": "", "text": "&gt;Facebook is going down hill as a site. It's constantly cluttered with ads on the news feed, Not just ads, friends' likes, which you can't shut off. It's becoming unusable to me. I counted the other day - there were 22 statuses or pictures from people I DON'T EVEN KNOW because a friend that I know clicked like on that status/pic. Interspersed with ads, it takes forever to see anything I care about, and I'm ready to be done with it." }, { "docid": "257163", "title": "", "text": "These have been around for decades. In the 80's and 90's they had you setup small ads in local newspapers and you would sell a brochure tells people how to make money, or solve some other problem. The idea was that money would roll in. The more ads you placed the more money you made. In the late 90's they had you setup a small website instead of a small newspaper advertisement , but the rest was the same. They were also done with eBay as the medium. Now they are live streams. Most of the money made is by the people selling you the course materials to show you exactly how to make money. Some of the people pitching these ideas though books, websites and infomercials were able to update their shtick to change with the medium, but the end result was always the same. Most people didn't make serious cash. The initial description of how it works is done for free and isn't enough information to know how to do it. The real secrets are after you pay for the advanced course. Of course to really make them work you need the expensive coaching sessions." }, { "docid": "563551", "title": "", "text": "\"Oddly enough, I started to research the \"\"Bank on Yourself\"\" strategy today as well (even before I'd ran across this question!). I'd heard an ad on the radio for it the other day, and it caught my attention because they claimed that the strategy isn't prone to market fluctuations like the stock market. It seemed in their radio ad that their target market was people who had lost serious money in their 401k's. So I set about doing some research of my own. It seems to me that the website bankonyourself.com gives a very superficial overview of the strategy without truly ever getting to the meat of it. I begin having a few misgivings at the point that I realized I'd read through a decent chunk of their website and yet I still didn't have a clear idea of the mechanism behind it all. I become leery any time I have to commit myself to something before I can be given a full understanding of how it works. It's shady and reeks of someone trying to back you into a corner so they can bludgeon you with their sales pitch until you cry \"\"Mercy!\"\" and agree to their terms just to stop the pain (which I suspect is what happens when they send an agent out to talk to you). There were other red flags that stood out to me, but I don't feel like getting into them. Anyway, through the use of google I was able to find a thread on another forum that was a veritable wealth of knowledge with regard to the mechanism of \"\"Bank on Yourself\"\" how it works. Here is the link: Bank on Yourself/Infinite Banking... There are quite a few users in the thread who have excellent insights into how all of it works. After reading through a large portion of the thread, I came away realizing that this strategy isn't for me. However, it does appear to be a potential choice for certain people depending upon their situation.\"" }, { "docid": "557396", "title": "", "text": "\"To be fair, while he was harsh and over-critical, he was realistic. Based on your vague wording (understandable, you think you have a unique proprietary idea) but the other stuff you mentioned, I don't think you can confidently say it'll make \"\"way over $200,000\"\". It doesn't seem like you've done much research at all, have a business plan together, or any credible experience to evaluate your idea without personal bias. Hope you continue to pursue it, but do your homework. Learn how to put together a business plan, etc. Because obviously if you came to an investor with your idea explained in the style of your original post, you'd more than likely be laughed off as a delusional kid.\"" }, { "docid": "372945", "title": "", "text": "\"Depends on testing. Sometimes a spot will play really broad and have four quadrant appeal. That one will go everywhere. There's as many ad strategies as there are stars in the universe. Sometimes you use the shotgun, sometimes you use the scalpel. A lot of comments are \"\"ads don't work on me, I use research\"\". You think marketers don't know that and influence that?\"" }, { "docid": "446679", "title": "", "text": "Mobile phones have emerged as the most imperative commodity in the life of most of the people. Belonging to any age group and coming from virtually any background, the cell phone that can help you stay connected with anyone and everyone you wish at almost any time in life is now a necessary part of life and not just a requirement. With new features and added facilities, the one most recent update done by the phone operators is the free prepaid recharge facility available online. Offering all the prepaid cell users an easy and almost instant recharge alternative, the free prepaid recharge facility is a god sent boon for all. Saving one from the hassle of travelling all the way to an ATM to withdraw money and then locate a mobile store, this is the new in thing now adding ease and convenience to the task of adding balance to your prepaid cell phones. The advantages a prepaid mobile owner enjoys are many but the most vital is the control over expenses which moreover one who owns a post-paid connection does not enjoy. With now an online free prepaid recharge added to the list of features, more and more people are now turning to this great facility. So, now enjoy an easy and convenient balance recharge on your prepaid cell phone with just a click. Offered by mobile operators of virtually all the brands functional in India, when accessing the prepaid recharge facility online, one can enjoy a top up recharge on balance of virtually any value. These deals offer you easy free recharge facility that supports your budget. These deals are different from other deals like contract phones, pay monthly phones, etc. in which you end up your month by paying huge mobile bills. Another benefit of this deal is that you are free to choose any network provider as per your wish. To control your bills, you can for sure use this kind of deal. Your usage of phone is completely dependent on the amount of money available in your phone. In other words we can say that it is a prepaid deal wherein you can make calls and send texts according to the balance and talk value available in your phone. Once you take this free online service, there is no need to pay any money in between the time period. This usage includes your calls, messages etc. It also allows you to make unlimited calls by paying their charges. A large number of offers also come associated with several kinds of plans. It may include free gifts such as laptops, ipods, free handsets and many more. It can also provide free talk time, free or low call rate, free text SMS and many others. Furthermore, this online websites are available for the users, which provide every detail about the latest Phones that are designed and launched by different brands. This websites elegantly facilitate the modern people to get free online recharge and the latest information about the offers and cheap mobile deals of different manufacturers quite easily. Recharge your mobile in free of cost here: www.freephonerecharge.in" }, { "docid": "216077", "title": "", "text": "Food is almost never a valid expense. Reason for it is simple - if you were not conducting business you would have to eat too. Ad 1. I don't see why travel in that case would not be a valid expense, as the only reason for you to travel there is for business reasons. Ad 2. Unlikely as there is a duality of purpose. So while part of it may be business, you are also getting personal benefit from the visit (coffee/cakes etc) so that generally is a no. Ad 3. No, while you can claim for entertainment of employees (to sensible extends), that doesn't work when entertaining clients. Ad 4. If any part of the trip is for leisure then you cannot claim it as business expense, sorry! If there is any duality of use then it's not a business expense. And food, as always, is a no go." }, { "docid": "47744", "title": "", "text": "Title agencies perform several things: Research the title for defects. You may not know what you're looking at, unless you're a real-estate professional, but some titles have strings attached to them (like, conditions for resale, usage, changes, etc). Research title issues (like misrepresentation of ownership, misrepresentation of the actual property titled, misrepresentation of conditions). Again, not being a professional in the domain, you might not understand the text you're looking at. Research liens. Those are usually have to be recorded (i.e.: the title company won't necessarily find a lien if it wasn't recorded with the county). Cover your a$$. And the bank's. They provide title insurance that guarantees your money back if they missed something they were supposed to find. The title insurance is usually required for a mortgaged transaction. While I understand why you would think you can do it, most people cannot. Even if they think they can - they cannot. In many areas this research cannot be done online, for example in California - you have to go to the county recorder office to look things up (for legal reasons, in CA counties are not allowed to provide access to certain information without verification of who's accessing). It may be worth your while to pay someone to do it, even if you can do it yourself, because your time is more valuable. Also, keep in mind that while you may trust your abilities - your bank won't. So you may be able to do your own due diligence - but the bank needs to do its own. Specifically to Detroit - the city is bankrupt. Every $100K counts for them. I'm surprised they only charge $6 per search, but that is probably limited by the State law." }, { "docid": "284165", "title": "", "text": "So, first -- good job on making a thorough checklist of things to look into. And onto your questions -- is this a worthwhile process? Even independent of specific investing goals, learning how to research is valuable. If you decided to forgo investing in stocks directly, and chose to only invest in index funds, the same type of research skills would be useful. (Not to mention that such discipline would come in handy in other fields as well.) What other 80/20 'low hanging fruit' knowledge have I missed? While it may not count as 'low hanging fruit', one thing that stands out to me is there's no mention of what competition a company has in its field. For example, a company may be doing well today, but you may see signs that it's consistently losing ground to its competition. While that alone may not dissuade you from investing, it may give you something to consider. Is what I've got so far any good? or am I totally missing the point. Your cheat sheet seems pretty good to me. But a lot depends on what your goals are. If you're doing this solely for your education and experience, I would say you've done well. If you're looking to invest in a company that is involved in a field you're passionate about, you're on the right track. But you should probably consider expanding your cheat sheet to include things that are not 'low hanging fruit' but still matter to you. However, I'd echo the comments that have already been made and suggest that if this is for retirement investments, take the skills you've developed in creating your cheat sheet and apply that work towards finding a set of index funds that meet your criteria. Otherwise happy hunting!" }, { "docid": "192083", "title": "", "text": "It's not just the US based mailing address for registration or US based credit-card or bank account: even if you had all these, like I do, you will find that these online filing companies do not have the infrastructure to handle non-resident taxes. The reason why the popular online filing companies do not handle non-resident taxes is because: Non-residents require a different set of forms to fill out - usually postfixed NR - like the 1040-NR. These forms have different rules and templates that do not follow the usual resident forms. This would require non-trivial programming done by these vendors All the NR forms have detailed instructions and separate set of non-resident guides that has enough information for a smart person to figure out what needs to be done. For example, check out Publication 519 (2011), U.S. Tax Guide for Aliens. As a result, by reading these most non-residents (or their accountants) seem to figure out how the taxes need to be filed. For the remaining others, the numbers perhaps are not significant enough to justify the non-trivial programming that need to be done by these vendors to incorporate the non-resident forms. This was my understanding when I did research into tax filing software. However, if you or anyone else do end up finding tax filing software that does allow non-resident forms, I wil be extremely happy to learn about them. To answer your question: you need to do it yourself or get it done by someone who knows non-resident taxes. Some people on this forum, including me for gratis, would be glad to check your work once you are done with it as long as you relieve us of any liability." }, { "docid": "465172", "title": "", "text": "\"I spend hours researching two comparable products to try to save $3. Me too! I have also argued for hours with customer support to get $5/month off a bill (that's $60/year!), and I feel guilty every time I eat out or do something remotely luxurious, like getting fries with my $1 McChicken. Geez, even when I play video games, I hate spending the in-game currency. For me, it's obsessive-compulsive traits that cause it, but please note that I'm not claiming @Eddie has them. Just speaking for myself here, but I hope it helps. I still struggle with my miserliness, but I can share what works for me and what doesn't. I don't think I'm valuing my time nearly as much as I should. Me neither, but knowing that doesn't help; it makes it worse. For me, putting a dollar amount on how much I value my time does not work because that just complicates the problem and amplifies how much time I spend solving that multi-variable optimization problem. Consider trying to convince Monk not to avoid germs in order to build antibodies; it just makes him think more about germs, raising anxiety and making easy decisions (use a handkerchief to touch doorknobs) into a hard decision (should I touch it or should I not?). It also amplifies the regret whenever you finally make a certain choice (\"\"what if I did the calculation wrong?\"\" or \"\"what if I'm going to get sick tomorrow because I touched that doorknob?\"\"). Making the problem more complicated isn't the solution. So how to make it simpler? Make the decision ahead of time! For me, budgets are the key to reducing the anxiety associated with financial decision making. Every six months or so, my wife and I spend hours deciding how much to spend per month on things. We can really take our time analyzing it because we only have to do it occasionally. Once we set $50/month for restaurants, I no longer have to feel like a loser every time we eat out -- similarly for discretionary spending and everything else. TBH, I'm not sure exactly why it works -- why I don't regret the dollar amounts we put on every budget -- but it really does help. I join my coworkers for lunch on Fridays because I already decided that was okay. At that point, I can focus my OC-tendencies on eating every last gram of organic matter on my plate. Without directly touching the ketchup bottle, of course. :) Again, just speaking for myself, but having budgets has done wonders for my stress level with respect to finances. For me, budgets are less about restricting my spending and more about permitting me to spend! It's not perfect, but it helps. (Not that it's relevant, but I reworded this answer about 20 times and only hit 'Post' with great effort to suppress the need to keep editing it! I'll be refreshing every 30 seconds for updates.)\"" }, { "docid": "446555", "title": "", "text": "\"I think it is the debate here. The functional use case is that it takes seconds to plug in. Even if you added all the time I've spent \"\"on-the-go\"\" charging, which is very little, then the amount of time I've spent charging has been less than the amount of time I would have spent filling up on gas over the course of several years. Also, like I said in the comment, this is not just \"\"MY\"\" use case. You can ask other drivers about it, the vast majority will say they prefer charging now that they have experienced it. Look at Volts - most of their miles are done on electricity, and there are a lot of Volt drivers who use the term \"\"gas anxiety\"\" because they don't want to fill up with gas so they do everything they can not to let the engine turn on at all. And for another car example, Tesla installed a battery swapper which made the filling-up experience more \"\"gas-like,\"\" in that it took &lt;5 minutes and cost about $50. Nobody used it. They instead plugged in at the free supercharger nearby, got out to stretch their legs, went to eat lunch, and came back to their cars and drove off. Heck, I've heard plenty of Tesla owners lament that their car charged *too quickly*, which meant they had to get up in the middle of lunch to go unplug it. Very few people will regularly \"\"need\"\" to charge en-route in something like a Bolt, Model 3 or Model S. Those very few people who routinely drive 300 miles in a day one-way, or roundtrip with very little stop at their destination with which they could charge, are a niche customer who does not need to be catered to at this moment in time. However, and I get this all the time, everyone on reddit thinks they're part of that niche. On a website full of people who talk about spending all their day on reddit, somehow these people get the time to spend driving 400 miles a day. Not saying you're doing that right now, but lots of people do it here. 95%+ of charge events will be normal, day-to-day charges where it takes no time, the \"\"on-the-go\"\" cases are few and far between. EV motorcycles are pretty reasonably priced, but it sounds like you've probably already done some research on them. Check out Zero if you haven't heard of them. Cool thing about them is the battery is small so you can charge it on 120v in a reasonable amount of time (overnight), and I've heard from motorcycle drivers that they even feel more safe on an EV because all those brain cycles you spend on shifting and clutching are freed up to spend on paying attention to the road which is full of cars that are trying to kill you. Also the Bolt is a fantastic car. Highly recommend it. edit: oh, and with your name, you should check out the Lightning LS218's results at Pike's Peak a few years ago. Beat the Ducati by 20 seconds ;-) https://www.wired.com/2013/07/lightning-pikes-peak-2013/\"" }, { "docid": "57033", "title": "", "text": "\"The high frequency trading you reference has no adverse impact on individual investors - at least not in the \"\"going to take advantage of you\"\" way that many articles imply. If anything, high-frequency trading is generally more helpful than harmful, adding liquidity to the system, although it can cause some volatility and \"\"noise\"\" in volume and other data, and the sudden entrance or exit of this type of trading can drive some abnormal market movements. As to research and time needed for trading, most data suggests that the less you try to \"\"beat the market\"\", the better you'll do. Trade activity tends to be inversely related to returns, particularly for individuals. Your best bet is likely to learn enough about investment risks to ensure you're comfortable with them, and invest in broadly diversified asset classes, regions, and sectors, and then mostly leave them alone, or rebalance annually. You'll almost surely do a lot better that way than you will if you spend countless hours researching the \"\"right\"\" stocks to buy.\"" }, { "docid": "280626", "title": "", "text": "To expand a bit on what TripeHound said in the comment section, past performance is not indicative of future performance, which is why the best advice is to ignore if you already own the stock or not. If the stock goes down, but you've done your research and think it will come back, then investing more isn't a bad idea. If the stock is doing well and it will continue to do well, then invest more. Treat investing more into a stock you already own as a new investment and do your research. TL;DR of your question, it's a very case-by-case basis" } ]

[ { "docid": "28740", "title": "", "text": "\"It works if after the price has halved and you buy more the price then rises, however if you are attempting to do this you are basing you \"\"doubling down\"\" on hope, and if you are basing a purchase on hope you are gambling. In many cases if the price has halved it could be because there is something very wrong with the company, so the price could easly half again. In that case it hasn't worked. You are better off waiting to see if the company makes a turn around and starts improving. Wait for confirmation that the stock price is heading back up before buying.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "548848", "title": "", "text": "Sounds great, but what happens in practice is that the town loses money out the wazoo by 1) failing to levy taxes on the primary attraction, 2) capture peripheral expenditures by visitors, 3) having to support increased traffic, or worse, throw bonds at infrastructure that never gets used, 4) flat-out corruption, 5) foolish promotions. Nobody wants to hire losers from depressed communities, particularly black ones, anyway; the good jobs go to imported or commuter talent, if any jobs materialize at all. Offer value to the world, and the world will return value. Instead, these communities whore their cheapness. Well guess what, you don't see too many cheap whores getting rich, do you." }, { "docid": "309256", "title": "", "text": "\"In short: management wants something because somebody said some vague idea. Management does not really know why the idea should be done! ROI? Good idea? Is there a need for the idea? Let's not forget that to begin with, management does not know how to execute, implement or design the idea. Never! The idea is sent to IT to think and do all the above. IT will never fight Management and do serious work on the first part: Should the idea be done? ROI? Need for the idea? Business Analysts in IT are notoriously knows to be clueless except to write down \"\"requirements\"\" that some Business people said. So, IT concentrates on the 2nd part: implement and design a solution for the idea. And between the 12 people in IT working on the design and implementation, non of them have background in Business, Marketing or Accounting, the results are predictable. How it should be done? You have an idea? You and only you work with all the stakeholder on all aspects of evaluating and implementing the idea: from research about the validity and feasibility of the idea, to checking and working closely with the design and development team as YOU try to implement the idea.\"" }, { "docid": "446679", "title": "", "text": "Mobile phones have emerged as the most imperative commodity in the life of most of the people. Belonging to any age group and coming from virtually any background, the cell phone that can help you stay connected with anyone and everyone you wish at almost any time in life is now a necessary part of life and not just a requirement. With new features and added facilities, the one most recent update done by the phone operators is the free prepaid recharge facility available online. Offering all the prepaid cell users an easy and almost instant recharge alternative, the free prepaid recharge facility is a god sent boon for all. Saving one from the hassle of travelling all the way to an ATM to withdraw money and then locate a mobile store, this is the new in thing now adding ease and convenience to the task of adding balance to your prepaid cell phones. The advantages a prepaid mobile owner enjoys are many but the most vital is the control over expenses which moreover one who owns a post-paid connection does not enjoy. With now an online free prepaid recharge added to the list of features, more and more people are now turning to this great facility. So, now enjoy an easy and convenient balance recharge on your prepaid cell phone with just a click. Offered by mobile operators of virtually all the brands functional in India, when accessing the prepaid recharge facility online, one can enjoy a top up recharge on balance of virtually any value. These deals offer you easy free recharge facility that supports your budget. These deals are different from other deals like contract phones, pay monthly phones, etc. in which you end up your month by paying huge mobile bills. Another benefit of this deal is that you are free to choose any network provider as per your wish. To control your bills, you can for sure use this kind of deal. Your usage of phone is completely dependent on the amount of money available in your phone. In other words we can say that it is a prepaid deal wherein you can make calls and send texts according to the balance and talk value available in your phone. Once you take this free online service, there is no need to pay any money in between the time period. This usage includes your calls, messages etc. It also allows you to make unlimited calls by paying their charges. A large number of offers also come associated with several kinds of plans. It may include free gifts such as laptops, ipods, free handsets and many more. It can also provide free talk time, free or low call rate, free text SMS and many others. Furthermore, this online websites are available for the users, which provide every detail about the latest Phones that are designed and launched by different brands. This websites elegantly facilitate the modern people to get free online recharge and the latest information about the offers and cheap mobile deals of different manufacturers quite easily. Recharge your mobile in free of cost here: www.freephonerecharge.in" }, { "docid": "543199", "title": "", "text": "I have won a large amount of money on an online casino. How reputed is the company? Have you done any research around it? It has taken 2 months for me to see any payouts. Last week I received $2300 check from them. Did you win everything in the same period? If so there is no reason why they sent you a smaller check of $2300 instead of the full amount. This should raise a red flag. Why would someone write multiple checks. The only valid reason is you won in different months. The payout for first month was $2300 and they sent a check. The payout for next month is large amount ... the request for Bank Details. that they would rather wire me the money and they are asking for my banking account number and routing number. Although giving bank account number and routing has some risks. This is the fundamental information that is need to make a credit to your account directly. You would be giving this to quite a few entities / people. In most countries, this information is printed on every check that you write from your account. Is this safe? Or am I stupid for even considering this? Online world is full of traps and this could be a scam. So proceed with extreme caution. Insist of check. In worst case open a different savings account, that does not allow direct debits, does not have over draft, etc. Use this to receive money and move it into your regular account." }, { "docid": "130349", "title": "", "text": "\"My idea if I had it done would make way over $200,000. $200,000 would only scratch the surface if the business got started up. You sir are the actual idiot for acting like you know everything about my idea without any evidence whatsoever. The idea has 100% never been done before, and that's a fact. You can't call someone's idea a terrible one without knowing what it is so I will keep going for my goal because people like you will come and go as much as you please. I said \"\"I'm confident my business would be successful\"\" you don't need research to have hope and determination. I pity the guy who went out of his at in an attempt to discourage my dream. I hope to get back to you after my business gets the wheels rolling, so I can take everything you just said to me and shove it up your ass while you continue to hate on everything and everyone. Fuck face\"" }, { "docid": "477811", "title": "", "text": "\"I'd like to know if there is any reliable research on the subject. Intuitively, this must be true, no? Is it? First, is it even possible to discover the correlation, if one exists? Dave Ramsey is a proponent of \"\"Proven study that shows you will spend 10% more on a credit card than with cash.\"\" Of course, he suggests that the study came from an otherwise reliable source, Dun & Bradstreet. A fellow blogger at Get Rich Slowly researched and found - Nobody I know has been able to track down this mythical Dun and Bradstreet study. Even Dun and Bradstreet themselves have been unable to locate it. GRS reader Nicole (with the assistance of her trusty librarian Wendi) contacted the company and received this response: “After doing some research with D&B, it turns out that someone made up the statement, and also made up the part where D&B actually said that.” In other words, the most cited study is a Myth. In fact, there are studies which do conclude that card users spend more. I think that any study (on anything, not just this topic. Cigarette companies buy studies to show they don't cause cancer, Big Oil pays to disprove global warming, etc.) needs to be viewed with a critical eye. The studies I've seen nearly all contain one of 2 major flaws - My own observation - when I reviewed our budget over the course of a year, some of the largest charges include - I list the above, as these are items whose cost is pretty well fixed. We are not in the habit of \"\"going for a drive,\"\" gas is bought when we need it. All other items I consider fixed, in that the real choice is to pay with the card or check, unlike the items some claim can be inflated. These add to about 80% of the annual card use. I don't see it possible for card use to impact these items, and therefore the \"\"10% more\"\" warning is overreaching. To conclude, I'll concede that even the pay-in-full group might not adhere to the food budget, and grab the $5 brownie near the checkout, or over tip on a restaurant meal. But those situations are not sufficient to assume that a responsible card user comes out behind over the year for having done so. A selection of the Studies I am referencing -\"" }, { "docid": "413713", "title": "", "text": "Through talking with the head of our finance department yesterday and a few BI guys, i think i'm gonna learn SQL and Python so I can then move on to something like Tableau with a strong base. The company will pay for my training of it so I'm lucky with that. Do you have any specific ways you recommend I learn SQL/Python? I know of CodeAcademy but haven't done too much other research." }, { "docid": "390237", "title": "", "text": "I've done a paper on this subject all meme aside. I've read several pro-researches and contra. In all honestly I don't think an UBI is viable. The main reason being the inefficient spending of money. It was a nice thought-experiment and a nice idea but unfortunately no" }, { "docid": "446555", "title": "", "text": "\"I think it is the debate here. The functional use case is that it takes seconds to plug in. Even if you added all the time I've spent \"\"on-the-go\"\" charging, which is very little, then the amount of time I've spent charging has been less than the amount of time I would have spent filling up on gas over the course of several years. Also, like I said in the comment, this is not just \"\"MY\"\" use case. You can ask other drivers about it, the vast majority will say they prefer charging now that they have experienced it. Look at Volts - most of their miles are done on electricity, and there are a lot of Volt drivers who use the term \"\"gas anxiety\"\" because they don't want to fill up with gas so they do everything they can not to let the engine turn on at all. And for another car example, Tesla installed a battery swapper which made the filling-up experience more \"\"gas-like,\"\" in that it took &lt;5 minutes and cost about $50. Nobody used it. They instead plugged in at the free supercharger nearby, got out to stretch their legs, went to eat lunch, and came back to their cars and drove off. Heck, I've heard plenty of Tesla owners lament that their car charged *too quickly*, which meant they had to get up in the middle of lunch to go unplug it. Very few people will regularly \"\"need\"\" to charge en-route in something like a Bolt, Model 3 or Model S. Those very few people who routinely drive 300 miles in a day one-way, or roundtrip with very little stop at their destination with which they could charge, are a niche customer who does not need to be catered to at this moment in time. However, and I get this all the time, everyone on reddit thinks they're part of that niche. On a website full of people who talk about spending all their day on reddit, somehow these people get the time to spend driving 400 miles a day. Not saying you're doing that right now, but lots of people do it here. 95%+ of charge events will be normal, day-to-day charges where it takes no time, the \"\"on-the-go\"\" cases are few and far between. EV motorcycles are pretty reasonably priced, but it sounds like you've probably already done some research on them. Check out Zero if you haven't heard of them. Cool thing about them is the battery is small so you can charge it on 120v in a reasonable amount of time (overnight), and I've heard from motorcycle drivers that they even feel more safe on an EV because all those brain cycles you spend on shifting and clutching are freed up to spend on paying attention to the road which is full of cars that are trying to kill you. Also the Bolt is a fantastic car. Highly recommend it. edit: oh, and with your name, you should check out the Lightning LS218's results at Pike's Peak a few years ago. Beat the Ducati by 20 seconds ;-) https://www.wired.com/2013/07/lightning-pikes-peak-2013/\"" }, { "docid": "287227", "title": "", "text": "\"I think you have to go back to [this HBR article](https://hbr.org/2014/09/profits-without-prosperity) to really understand: TLDR: Buybacks boost CEO pay and hurt the long term value of companies. But I'm not convinced that they're \"\"the root of inequality\"\" \"\"Consider the 449 companies in the S&amp;P 500 index that were publicly listed from 2003 through 2012. During that period those companies used 54% of their earnings—a total of $2.4 trillion—to buy back their own stock, almost all through purchases on the open market. Dividends absorbed an additional 37% of their earnings. That left very little for investments in productive capabilities or higher incomes for employees.\"\" \"\"Why are such massive resources being devoted to stock repurchases? Corporate executives give several reasons, which I will discuss later. But none of them has close to the explanatory power of this simple truth: Stock-based instruments make up the majority of their pay, and in the short term buybacks drive up stock prices. \"\" \"\"Trillions of dollars that could have been spent on innovation and job creation in the U.S. economy over the past three decades have instead been used to buy back shares for what is effectively stock-price manipulation.\"\" \"\" Most are now done on the open market, and my research shows that they often come at the expense of investment in productive capabilities and, consequently, aren’t great for long-term shareholders.\"\" \"\"Research by the Academic-Industry Research Network, a nonprofit I cofounded and lead, shows that companies that do buybacks never resell the shares at higher prices.\"\" \"\"Many academics have warned that if U.S. companies don’t start investing much more in research and manufacturing capabilities, they cannot expect to remain competitive in a range of advanced technology industries. \"\" Specific examples: \"\"Pharmaceutical drugs. In response to complaints that U.S. drug prices are at least twice those in any other country, Pfizer and other U.S. pharmaceutical companies have argued that the profits from these high prices—enabled by a generous intellectual-property regime and lax price regulation—permit more R&amp;D to be done in the United States than elsewhere. Yet from 2003 through 2012, Pfizer funneled an amount equal to 71% of its profits into buybacks, and an amount equal to 75% of its profits into dividends. In other words, it spent more on buybacks and dividends than it earned and tapped its capital reserves to help fund them. The reality is, Americans pay high drug prices so that major pharmaceutical companies can boost their stock prices and pad executive pay.\"\" \"\"Nanotechnology. Intel executives have long lobbied the U.S. government to increase spending on nanotechnology research. In 2005, Intel’s then-CEO, Craig R. Barrett, argued that “it will take a massive, coordinated U.S. research effort involving academia, industry, and state and federal governments to ensure that America continues to be the world leader in information technology.” Yet from 2001, when the U.S. government launched the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), through 2013 Intel’s expenditures on buybacks were almost four times the total NNI budget.\"\"\"" }, { "docid": "150750", "title": "", "text": "The big news houses have struggled to grasp the crypto space. Most articles by Bloomberg etc are riddled with errors, but in time, the quality and depth of analysis will improve. Though many are quick to call bubble, one can argue that the crypto space had its bubble before it crashed, largely before there was any improvement or development in the tech. Today, there is heavy investment and development, including many Fortune 500 companies who have joined EEA. The winners and losers will shake out, and only then will large institutional investors begin to consider this as an investable space (largely as hedges against adverse affects in other currencies and asset classes)." }, { "docid": "57033", "title": "", "text": "\"The high frequency trading you reference has no adverse impact on individual investors - at least not in the \"\"going to take advantage of you\"\" way that many articles imply. If anything, high-frequency trading is generally more helpful than harmful, adding liquidity to the system, although it can cause some volatility and \"\"noise\"\" in volume and other data, and the sudden entrance or exit of this type of trading can drive some abnormal market movements. As to research and time needed for trading, most data suggests that the less you try to \"\"beat the market\"\", the better you'll do. Trade activity tends to be inversely related to returns, particularly for individuals. Your best bet is likely to learn enough about investment risks to ensure you're comfortable with them, and invest in broadly diversified asset classes, regions, and sectors, and then mostly leave them alone, or rebalance annually. You'll almost surely do a lot better that way than you will if you spend countless hours researching the \"\"right\"\" stocks to buy.\"" }, { "docid": "305523", "title": "", "text": "I'm sorry for adding another answer @MatthewFlaschen but it is too long for a comment. It depends on the situation. Say you buy shares of the Apple Inc. and want to know what is the lost opportunity cost. You need to find out what other opportunities are. In other words what are the other possible types of investments you consider. For example in theory you could try to invest in any company from S&P 500, but is it really possible (I don’t mean investing directly in index) . Are you really capable of researching each company. So in your case you would consider only a few companies as alternative solutions. Also after different time period each choice may be your lost opportunity cost. To measure the risk you have to: In conclusion I want to say that my goal was to picture in general how the process looks. Also this is just an exemplary answer. All is about in what finance field you are interested. For example in one field you use Internal Rate of Return and in other Value at Risk. Opportunity cost is to vague to exactly tell how measure its risk of wrong anticipation. It connects in every finance field and in every field you have different ways do deal with it. If you specify your question more, maybe someone will provide a better answer." }, { "docid": "516880", "title": "", "text": "There are many technical answers above , but the short story to me is that very few active fund managers consistently beat the market. Look at the results of actively managed funds. Depending on whose analysis you read, you will find out that somewhere between 80-90% of fund managers in a given year do not beat passive index funds. So go figure how you will do compared to a mutual fund manager who has way more experience than you likely have. So, that in itself is moderately interesting, but if you look at same-manager performance over several consecutive years it is rare to find anyone that goes beats the market for more than a few years in a row. There are exceptions, but go pick one of these guys/gals - good luck. Getting in and out of the market is a loser. This is because there is no way to see market spikes and down turns. There are many behavioral studies that have been done that show people do the wrong thing: they sell after losses have occurred and they buy after the market has gone up. Missing an up spike and not being in before the spike is as devastating as missing a down turn and not getting out in time. There is another down side, if you are trading in a personal account, rather than a tax deferred account, going in and out of stocks has tax complications. In short, a broad based equity index will, over time, beat about anything out there and it will do it in a tax efficient manner. Exchange traded funds (ETFs) are a wonderful way to obtain diversification immediately at very low cost." }, { "docid": "226646", "title": "", "text": "Most startup community would say don't even bother to secure it unless yours is never done before. If you really done a lot of research and no one has done it before. Maybe you're one of the lucky few in the world with some new idea. Some investors get turned off when you make them sign NDA, especially if you're a first time entrepreneur. But chances are you're probably not. Instead focus on validating the idea and get market traction." }, { "docid": "194437", "title": "", "text": "&gt;Facebook is going down hill as a site. It's constantly cluttered with ads on the news feed, Not just ads, friends' likes, which you can't shut off. It's becoming unusable to me. I counted the other day - there were 22 statuses or pictures from people I DON'T EVEN KNOW because a friend that I know clicked like on that status/pic. Interspersed with ads, it takes forever to see anything I care about, and I'm ready to be done with it." }, { "docid": "370632", "title": "", "text": "Every Austrian student is required to do a bachelor thesis. The research is very basic, nothing like a master's thesis where you do proper research on a topic. As I said, my goal is to be done by the end of September if I can start with research in July. A master's thesis would certainly take significantly longer and more preparation. For me it's whether or not I can tie it into my place of employment." }, { "docid": "372945", "title": "", "text": "\"Depends on testing. Sometimes a spot will play really broad and have four quadrant appeal. That one will go everywhere. There's as many ad strategies as there are stars in the universe. Sometimes you use the shotgun, sometimes you use the scalpel. A lot of comments are \"\"ads don't work on me, I use research\"\". You think marketers don't know that and influence that?\"" }, { "docid": "12373", "title": "", "text": "\"As someone who's done quit a bit of home improvement and seen positive ROI, I can speak from some personal experience. All of this assumes you do the unskilled labor yourself and shop around for relatively cheap plumbers, electricians, etc. First, never underestimate the resale value added by a can of paint. This assumes you have, or know someone with a good sense of style that can help improve the aesthetics of the home significantly. White walls can be so boring to homebuyers and so many of them can't see through the 1/16 of an inch of white paint. Second, look for shortcomings in the house as-is. Anyway, these are some common upgrades. The big thing is to find something you are reasonably comfortable doing yourself and that you will enjoy. Realize that if you're new to this most projects will cost twice what you budget and take four times as long! The pride of having done it yourself and put in the sweat equity makes it worth it though (usually). Edit To better answer your modified question, I'm adding to my answer. So if I understand it, your question is now \"\"At what rate is it sane to invest in our house vs. outside investments\"\". This is really just a matter of balancing risk vs. lifestyle. With most upgrades there is no financial benefit to investing in upgrading your home now vs. 5 years from now right before you sell. You could be making 10% in mutual funds until then and then invest in the upgrades right before you sell. There is obviously a physical limit to how fast you can do these improvements yourself, but front-loading this now at the beginning of your timeframe as opposed to the end is not an investment decision, it is a lifestyle decision. Not saying \"\"Don't do it\"\", but don't rationalize it to yourself as \"\"we're saving money by doing this now.\"\" Maybe use the rationalization \"\"We want to enjoy these upgrades and not just add them before we move out.\"\" One exception to that - I'd plant any trees now and make sure they have a good water supply. Good trees take a while to grow, and doing that sooner rather than later will help.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "40702", "title": "", "text": "Yes, if there is liquidity you can sell your option to someone else as a profit. This is what the majority of option trading volume is used for: speculative trading with leverage." } ]

[ { "docid": "55769", "title": "", "text": "A closed-end fund is a collective investment scheme that is closed to new investment once the fund starts operating. A typical open-ended fund will allow you to buy more shares of the fund anytime you want and the fund will create those new shares for you and invest your new money to continue growing assets under management. A closed-end fund only using the initial capital invested when the fund started operating and no new shares are typically created (always exception in the financial community). Normally you buy and sell an open-end fund from the fund company directly. A closed-end fund will usually be bought and sold on the secondary market. Here is some more information from Wikipedia Some characteristics that distinguish a closed-end fund from an ordinary open-end mutual fund are that: Another distinguishing feature of a closed-end fund is the common use of leverage or gearing to enhance returns. CEFs can raise additional investment capital by issuing auction rate securities, preferred shares, long-term debt, and/or reverse-repurchase agreements. In doing so, the fund hopes to earn a higher return with this excess invested capital." }, { "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": "547984", "title": "", "text": "The buyer discloses the financing arrangements to the seller because it makes his offer more attractive. When a seller receives and accepts an offer, the deal does not usually close until 30 to 60 days later. If the buyer cannot come up with the money by closing, the deal falls apart. This is a risk for the seller. When a seller is considering whether or not to accept an offer, it is helpful to know the likelihood that the buyer can actually obtain the amount of cash in the offer by the closing date. If the buyer can't acquire the funding, the offer isn't worth the paper it is printed on. The amount of the down payment vs. the amount of financing is also relevant to the seller. Let me give you a real-world example that happened to me once when I was selling a house. The buyer was doing a no-money-down mortgage and had no money for a down payment. He was even borrowing the closing costs. We accepted the offer, but when the bank did the appraisal, it was short of the purchase price. For most home sales, this would not be a problem, as long as the appraisal was more than the amount borrowed. But in this case, because the amount borrowed was more than the appraisal, the bank had a problem. The deal was at risk, and in order to continue either the buyer had to find some money somewhere (which he couldn't), or we had to lower the price to save the deal. Certainly, accepting the offer from a buyer with no cash to bring to the table was a risk. (In our case, we got lucky. We found some errors that were made in the appraisal, and got it redone.)" }, { "docid": "221427", "title": "", "text": "With a short position you make your money (profit) when you buy the stocks back to close the position at a lower price than what you bought them at. As short selling is classed as speculation and not investing and you at no time own any actual assets, you cannot donate any short possition to charity. If you did want to avoid paying tax on the profits you could donate the proceeds of the profits after closing the position and thus get a tax deduction equal to the profits you made. But that raises a new and more important question, why are you trading in the first place if you are afraid to make profits in case you have to pay tax on those profits?" }, { "docid": "384819", "title": "", "text": "This is of course a perfectly normal thing to happen. People trade up to a bigger house every day. When you've found a bigger house you want to move to and a buyer for your existing one, you arrange 'closing dates' for both i.e. the date on which the sale actually happens. Usually you make them very close, either on the same day or with an overlap of a few weeks. You use the equity (i.e. the difference between the house value and the mortgage) in the old house as the down payment on the new house. You can't of course use the part of the old house that is mortgaged. If the day you buy the new and sell the old is the same, your banks and lawyers do everything for you on that day. If there is an overlap then you need something called 'bridge financing' to cover the period when you own two houses. Banks are used to doing this, and it's not really that expensive when you take into account all the other costs of moving house. Talk to them for details. As a side note, it is generally reckoned not to be worth buying a house if you only intended to live there one or two years. The costs involved in the process of buying, selling and moving usually outweigh any gains in house value. You may find yourself with a higher down payment if you rent for a year or two and save up a down payment for your 'bigger' house instead." }, { "docid": "357324", "title": "", "text": "Cart's answer is basically correct, but I'd like to elaborate: A futures contract obligates both the buyer of a contract and the seller of a contract to conduct the underlying transaction (settle) at the agreed-upon future date and price written into the contract. Aside from settlement, the only other way either party can get out of the transaction is to initiate a closing transaction, which means: The party that sold the contract buys back another similar contract to close his position. The party that bought the contract can sell the contract on to somebody else. Whereas, an option contract provides the buyer of the option with the choice of completing the transaction. Because it's a choice, the buyer can choose to walk away from the transaction if the option exercise price is not attractive relative to the underlying stock price at the date written into the contract. When an option buyer walks away, the option is said to have expired. However – and this is the part I think needs elaboration – the original seller (writer) of the option contract doesn't have a choice. If a buyer chooses to exercise the option contract the seller wrote, the seller is obligated to conduct the transaction. In such a case, the seller's option contract is said to have been assigned. Only if the buyer chooses not to exercise does the seller's obligation go away. Before the option expires, the option seller can close their position by initiating a closing transaction. But, the seller can't simply walk away like the option buyer can." }, { "docid": "151587", "title": "", "text": "This is dependent on the broker according to The Options Industry Council. Your broker will specify what they would do upon expiry (or hours before last trade) if you did not indicate your preference. Most likely they will conduct a probabilistic simulation to see whether exercising the contracts may result in margin deficit even after selling the delivered shares under extreme circumstances. In most cases, brokers tend to liquidate the option for you (sell to close) before expiry. I've seen people complain about certain brokers forcing liquidation at terrible bid-ask spreads even though the options are still days to expiry. It is better for you to close the position on your own beforehand. The best brokers would allow margin deficit and let you deposit the required amount of money afterward. Please consult your broker's materials. If you can't find them, use live chat or email tickets." }, { "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": "236594", "title": "", "text": "\"The tricky part is that it's NAV is quite high these days, almost close to its 52 week high You will find, if you look historically, most markets are often close to their 52 week or even historical highs. This is an important consideration. \"\"The markets are at their all-time high!\"\" has been true a large percentage of the past decades. Everyone wants to buy low, sell high. But the reality is, buying low often will be \"\"buying at close to the highest point\"\" as no one has a crystal ball.\"" }, { "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": "292338", "title": "", "text": "If you are sure you are right, you should sell stock short. Then, after the market drop occurs, close out your position and buy stock, selling it once the stock has risen to the level you expect. Be warned, though. Short selling has a lot of risk. If you are wrong, you could quite easily lose all $80,000 or even substantially more. Consider, for example, this story of a person who had $37,000 and ended up losing all of that and still owing over $100,000. If you mistime your investment, you could quite easily lose your entire investment and end up hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt." }, { "docid": "235531", "title": "", "text": "RonJohn is right, all shares are owned by someone. Depending on the company, they can be closely held so that nobody wants to sell at a given time. This can cause the price people are offering to rise until someone sells. That trade will cause an adjustment in the ticker price of that stock. Supply and demand at work. Berkshire Hathaway is an example of this. The number of shares is low, the demand for them is high, the price per share is high." }, { "docid": "85488", "title": "", "text": "\"There should be no affect on your taxes. If you profit on the sale of a home, it does not matter whether you own the home fully or not. Selling a house with a mortgage on it will usually incur fees, \"\"like mortgage processing fees\"\". Paying off the mortgage is preferable because that will make the sale easier. When a bank is involved then they will function in the closing as a 3rd or 4th party, making everything more complicated. Not only that, they will charge you fees, for making them sit through a closing. The bank will require a lawyer. Guess who pays for their lawyer? You do. When you pay off a mortgage, none of this happens. You just pay the mortgage and the bank goes away. There are no lawyers and no fees. This makes it easier to sell the house and gives you full control over the sale.\"" }, { "docid": "58882", "title": "", "text": "\"Each candlestick in a candlestick chart represents the open, close, high and low for a period of time. If you are looking at a daily chart it represents the open price, close price, high price and low price for that day. If you are looking at an hourly chart, then a single candlestick represents the open, close, high and low prices for an hour. If looking at a weekly chart, then a single candlestick will represent the opening price on Monday morning, the closing price on Friday afternoon, and the highest and lowest price for that week. The diagram below represents the two main types of candle sticks. When the price closes higher than they open for the period of the candlestick it is called a bullish candle and the main body is usually represented in green. When the price closes lower than they open for the period of the candlestick it is called a bearish candle and the main body is usually represented in red. In a bullish candle with a large real body and small shadows or wicks, where prices open near the low of the period and close near the top of the period, it represents a very bullish period (especially if volume is high). An example of this situation could be when good news is released to the market and most market participants want to buy the shares driving prices higher during the period. An example of a bullish candle with a small real body and a large upper shadow or wick could be when market participants start buying early during the period, then some negative news comes out or prices reach a major resistance level, then prices drop from their highs but still close higher than the open. The large upper shadow represents some indecision in prices moving higher. In a bearish candle with a large real body and small shadows or wicks, where prices open near the high of the period and close near the low of the period, it represents a very bearish period (especially if volume is high). An example of this situation could be when bad news is released to the market and most market participants want to sell the shares driving prices lower during the period. An example of a bearish candle with a small real body and a large lower shadow or wick could be when market participants start selling early during the period, then some positive news comes out or prices reach a major support level, then prices move up from their lows but still close lower than the open. The large lower shadow represents some indecision in prices moving lower. These are just some examples of what can be derived from looking at candlestick charts. There are plenty more and too much to include in this answer. Another type of candle is the Doji, represented in the diagram below. The Doji Candle represents indecision in the market. Prices open then move up to the high of the period then start falling past the open before reversing again and closing either at the open or very close to the open. The market participants can't decide whether the price should move up or down, so prices end up closing very close to where they opened. A doji Candle close to a market high or low could represent a turning point in the short term trend and could mean that over the next period or two prices could reverse and go in the opposite direction. There are many more definitions for candlestick charts, and I would recommend an introductory book on candlestick charting, like one from the \"\"Dummies\"\" series. The main things to keep in mind as a beginner it that a strong bullish candle with small shadows and large real body could represent further price movement upwards, a strong bearish candle with small shadows and large real body could represent further movement downwards, and any candle with large shadows could represent indecision and a reversal from the direction of the large shadow.\"" }, { "docid": "452987", "title": "", "text": "&gt;Sounds like he should sell or close the company. You bring up a very good point. If he cares so much about his employees, but it's just too inconvenient for him to run the company if his taxes go up 5%, why not sell it instead of putting 7000 people out of a job? Why threaten people when there's an obvious alternative? Hell, if he just wants to close it anyways, he could just give the company away. &gt;See I can already shoot down your explanation, because it's not just higher taxes, its increased business tax liability, increased business insurance liability. Nope. He explicitly states that he will downsize or close the company if there are *any new taxes* whatsoever on either him *or* the business. It's also worth noting that his company is currently more profitable than its ever been. &gt;Obama said he didnt build it What? &gt;Rhetoric is cute until thousands of employees are out of jobs because the owner didn't feel it was worth it to continue the business. Yeah so maybe he should cut his bullshit rhetoric when those jobs are on the line and the only one responsible for their fates is him. And if it's really too much of a bother for him to run the company if he's making slightly less money when he's already said he has more money than he'll ever need, he can promote someone else to run the company or just sell it. Saying he cares about his employees makes him a liar, criticizing people who spent beyond their means makes him a hypocrite, and his empty threats and brow beating make him a bully." }, { "docid": "271110", "title": "", "text": "\"To add to what other have stated, I recently just decided to purchase a home over renting some more, and I'll throw in some of my thoughts about my decision to buy. I closed a couple of weeks ago. Note that I live in Texas, and that I'm not knowledgeable in real estate other than what I learned from my experiences in the area when I am located. It depends on the market and location. You have to compare what renting will get you for the money vs what buying will get you. For me, buying seemed like a better deal overall when just comparing monthly payments. This is including insurance and taxes. You will need to stay at a house that you buy for at least 5-7 years. You first couple years of payments will go almost entirely towards interest. It takes a while to build up equity. If you can pay more towards a mortgage, do it. You need to have money in the bank already to close. The minimum down payment (at least in my area) is 3.5% for an FHA loan. If you put 20% down, you don't need to pay mortgage insurance, which is essentially throwing money away. You will also have add in closing costs. I ended up purchasing a new construction. My monthly payment went up from $1200 to $1600 (after taxes, insurance, etc.), but the house is bigger, newer, more energy efficient, much closer to my work, in a more expensive area, and in a market that is expected to go up in value. I had all of my closing costs (except for the deposit) taken care of by the lender and builder, so all of my closing costs I paid out of pocket went to the deposit (equity, or the \"\"bank\"\"). If I decide to move and need to sell, then I will get a lot (losing some to selling costs and interest) of the money I have put in to the house back out of it when I do sell, and I have the option to put that money towards another house. To sum it all up, I'm not paying a difference in monthly costs because I bought a house. I had my closing costs taking care of and just had to pay the deposit, which goes to equity. I will have to do maintenance myself, but I don't mind fixing what I can fix, and I have a builder's warranties on most things in the house. To really get a good idea of whether you should rent or buy, you need to talk to a Realtor and compare actual costs. It will be more expensive in the short term, but should save you money in the long term.\"" }, { "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": "315334", "title": "", "text": "If you're willing to shell out some cash, vendors will be quite happy to sell you everything you need. Picking one out of thin air, and no idea if this is a good price or not, the CBOE will sell you EOD data for every option for $40 for one day, and at a discount for multiple days. Beyond the high/low/close for each contract, you get the volume. Or a month of TAQ data will run your $1550, for what that's worth, which probably isn't a lot for a retail strategy." }, { "docid": "107045", "title": "", "text": "Rich's answer captures the basic essence of short selling with example. I'd like to add these additional points: You typically need a specially-privileged brokerage account to perform short selling. If you didn't request short selling when you opened your account, odds are good you don't have it, and that's good because it's not something most people should ever consider doing. Short selling is an advanced trading strategy. Be sure you truly grok selling short before doing it. Consider that when buying stock (a.k.a. going long or taking a long position, in contrast to short) then your potential loss as a buyer is limited (i.e. stock goes to zero) and your potential gain unlimited (stock keeps going up, if you're lucky!) Whereas, with short selling, it's reversed: Your loss can be unlimited (stock keeps going up, if you're unlucky!) and your potential gain is limited (i.e. stock goes to zero.) The proceeds you receive from a short sale – and then some – need to stay in your account to offset the short position. Brokers require this. Typically, margin equivalent to 150% the market value of the shares sold short must be maintained in the account while the short position is open. The owner of the borrowed shares is still expecting his dividends, if any. You are responsible for covering the cost of those dividends out of your own pocket. To close or cover your short position, you initiate a buy to cover. This is simply a buy order with the intention that it will close out your matching short position. You may be forced to cover your short position before you want to and when it is to your disadvantage! Even if you have sufficient margin available to cover your short, there are cases when lenders need their shares back. If too many short sellers are forced to close out positions at the same time, they push up demand for the stock, increasing price and deepening their losses. When this happens, it's called a short squeeze. In the eyes of the public who mostly go long buying stock, short sellers are often reviled. However, some people and many short sellers believe they are providing balance to the market and preventing it sometimes from getting ahead of itself. [Disambiguation: A short sale in the stock market is not related to the real estate concept of a short sale, which is when a property owner sells his property for less than he owes the bank.] Additional references:" } ]

[ { "docid": "557582", "title": "", "text": "Absolutely. There is no requirement that an option be in-the-money for you to close out a position. Remember that there are alwayes two sides to a trade - a buyer and a seller. When you bought your option, it's entirely possible that someone else was closing out their long position by selling it to you." } ]

[ { "docid": "533408", "title": "", "text": "\"You avoid pattern day trader status by trading e-mini futures through a futures broker. The PDT rules do not apply in the futures markets. Some of the markets that are available include representatives covering the major indices i.e the YM (DJIA), ES (S&P 500) and NQ (Nasdaq 100) and many more markets. You can take as many round-turn trades as you care to...as many or as few times a day as you like. E-mini futures contracts trade in sessions with \"\"transition\"\" times between sessions. -- Sessions begin Sunday evenings at 6 PM EST and are open through Monday evening at 5 PM EST...The next session begins at 6 pm Monday night running through Tuesday at 5 PM EST...etc...until Friday's session close at 5 PM EST. Just as with stocks, you can either buy first then sell (open and close a position) or short-sell (sell first then cover by buying). You profit (or lose) on a round turn trade in the same manor as you would if trading stocks, options, ETFs etc. The e-mini futures are different than the main futures markets that you may have seen traders working in the \"\"pits\"\" in Chicago...E-mini futures are totally electronic (no floor traders) and do not involve any potential delivery of the 'product'...They just require the closing of positions to end a transaction. A main difference is you need to maintain very little cash in your account in order to trade...$1000 or less per trade, per e-mini contract...You can trade just 1 contract at a time or as many contracts as you have the cash in your account to cover. \"\"Settlement\"\" is immediate upon closing out any position that you may have put on...No waiting for clearing before your next trade. If you want to hold an e-mini contract position over 2 or more sessions, you need to have about $5000 per contract in your account to cover the minimum margin requirement that comes into play during the transition between sessions... With the e-minis you are speculating on gaining from the difference between when you 'put-on' and \"\"close-out\"\" a position in order to profit. For example, if you think the DJIA is about to rise 20 points, you can buy 1 contract. If you were correct in your assessment and sold your contract after the e-mini rose 20 points, you profited $100. (For the DJIA e-mini, each 1 point 'tick' is valued at $5.00)\"" }, { "docid": "410887", "title": "", "text": "\"I'll answer this question: \"\"Why do intraday traders close their position at then end of day while most gains can be done overnight (buy just before the market close and sell just after it opens). Is this observation true for other companies or is it specific to apple ?\"\" Intraday traders often trade shares of a company using intraday leverage provided by their firm. For every $5000 dollars they actually have, they may be trading with $100,000, 20:1 leverage as an example. Since a stock can also decrease in value, substantially, while the markets are closed, intraday traders are not allowed to keep their highly leveraged positions opened. Probabilities fail in a random walk scenario, and only one failure can bankrupt you and the firm.\"" }, { "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": "221427", "title": "", "text": "With a short position you make your money (profit) when you buy the stocks back to close the position at a lower price than what you bought them at. As short selling is classed as speculation and not investing and you at no time own any actual assets, you cannot donate any short possition to charity. If you did want to avoid paying tax on the profits you could donate the proceeds of the profits after closing the position and thus get a tax deduction equal to the profits you made. But that raises a new and more important question, why are you trading in the first place if you are afraid to make profits in case you have to pay tax on those profits?" }, { "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": "295344", "title": "", "text": "Trading at the start of the day is highest because of news flows that may have come after the close of the previous day. And trading at the end of the day is highest because of expected news flows after closing hours. Moreover, there are many day traders who buy in the morning without making any payment for purchase and such traders have to sell by evening or else they will have to make the payment for the purchases which they have made." }, { "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": "366824", "title": "", "text": "Well it all kind of depends. The Realtor is your pro, and you should communicate further with him. Is this a neighborhood on the decline? Is there a good reason to make such a low offer? Are you totally off base when you think 85K is fair, and if so why? Is he just working his tail off for you (a great thing)? One thing that is a key to this negotiation is financing. What does your financing status look like? A reasonable cash offer with no contingencies and a quick close might be less than 70K. A person with strong financing can get a better discount then a person that is questionable. It could be that the Realtor is testing the waters to find the bottom price. The home selling season is closed (typically the summer), and the home has been on the market for a bit. Offering 70K might mean a counter at 82K, so you can work on an offer between 80 and 82. To me, it sounds like this guy is working for you. You should thank him. It is pretty hard to find a realtor that is willing to negotiate his pay down in order to save you money. Also he can answer the closing cost question better than us as he is more familiar with your particular market." }, { "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": "236594", "title": "", "text": "\"The tricky part is that it's NAV is quite high these days, almost close to its 52 week high You will find, if you look historically, most markets are often close to their 52 week or even historical highs. This is an important consideration. \"\"The markets are at their all-time high!\"\" has been true a large percentage of the past decades. Everyone wants to buy low, sell high. But the reality is, buying low often will be \"\"buying at close to the highest point\"\" as no one has a crystal ball.\"" }, { "docid": "305578", "title": "", "text": "\"As someone that works in and with the ag and commodity markets, my understanding, is limited but I hope it helps. Aside from needing an infrastructure built to maintain the vast amounts of data, communication, pricing, banking information, having a closing time for our markets helps to ensure value and fair trade. Capitalism is centralized around creating a fair value for ventures to sell, where prospective buyers opt to purchase or invest. For example, where I attended university, there were many coffee shops close to campus, but only one stayed open all night, and as such had operational cost much higher than other shops, forcing them to charge more for a cup of coffee. While this example is crude, the idea is the same. By maintaining\"\"bank\"\" hours, product or strategies and developments meant to increase projected value are allowed to occur. I imagine that if the markets did not close, my coffee prices would skyrocket for an increased demand, that of which the supply chsin, and farmers, would struggle to meet. The same would be said of grain, salt, oils, etcetera.\"" }, { "docid": "369166", "title": "", "text": "\"A \"\"stock price\"\" is nothing but the price at which some shares of that stock were sold on an exchange from someone willing to sell those shares at that price (or more) to someone willing to buy them at that price (or less). Pretty much every question about how stock prices work is answered by the paragraph above, which an astonishingly large number of people don't seem to be aware of. So there is no explicit \"\"tracking\"\" mechanism at all. Just people buying and selling, and if the current going price on two exchanges differ, then that is an opportunity for someone to make money by buying on one exchange and selling on the other - until the prices are close enough that the fees and overhead make that activity unprofitable. This is called \"\"arbitrage\"\" and a common activity of investment banks or (more recently) hedge funds and specialized trading firms spun off by said banks due to regulation.\"" }, { "docid": "58882", "title": "", "text": "\"Each candlestick in a candlestick chart represents the open, close, high and low for a period of time. If you are looking at a daily chart it represents the open price, close price, high price and low price for that day. If you are looking at an hourly chart, then a single candlestick represents the open, close, high and low prices for an hour. If looking at a weekly chart, then a single candlestick will represent the opening price on Monday morning, the closing price on Friday afternoon, and the highest and lowest price for that week. The diagram below represents the two main types of candle sticks. When the price closes higher than they open for the period of the candlestick it is called a bullish candle and the main body is usually represented in green. When the price closes lower than they open for the period of the candlestick it is called a bearish candle and the main body is usually represented in red. In a bullish candle with a large real body and small shadows or wicks, where prices open near the low of the period and close near the top of the period, it represents a very bullish period (especially if volume is high). An example of this situation could be when good news is released to the market and most market participants want to buy the shares driving prices higher during the period. An example of a bullish candle with a small real body and a large upper shadow or wick could be when market participants start buying early during the period, then some negative news comes out or prices reach a major resistance level, then prices drop from their highs but still close higher than the open. The large upper shadow represents some indecision in prices moving higher. In a bearish candle with a large real body and small shadows or wicks, where prices open near the high of the period and close near the low of the period, it represents a very bearish period (especially if volume is high). An example of this situation could be when bad news is released to the market and most market participants want to sell the shares driving prices lower during the period. An example of a bearish candle with a small real body and a large lower shadow or wick could be when market participants start selling early during the period, then some positive news comes out or prices reach a major support level, then prices move up from their lows but still close lower than the open. The large lower shadow represents some indecision in prices moving lower. These are just some examples of what can be derived from looking at candlestick charts. There are plenty more and too much to include in this answer. Another type of candle is the Doji, represented in the diagram below. The Doji Candle represents indecision in the market. Prices open then move up to the high of the period then start falling past the open before reversing again and closing either at the open or very close to the open. The market participants can't decide whether the price should move up or down, so prices end up closing very close to where they opened. A doji Candle close to a market high or low could represent a turning point in the short term trend and could mean that over the next period or two prices could reverse and go in the opposite direction. There are many more definitions for candlestick charts, and I would recommend an introductory book on candlestick charting, like one from the \"\"Dummies\"\" series. The main things to keep in mind as a beginner it that a strong bullish candle with small shadows and large real body could represent further price movement upwards, a strong bearish candle with small shadows and large real body could represent further movement downwards, and any candle with large shadows could represent indecision and a reversal from the direction of the large shadow.\"" }, { "docid": "11456", "title": "", "text": "The short answer to your initial question is: yes. The option doesn't expire until the close of the market on the day of expiration. Because the option is expiring so soon, the time value of the option is quite small. That is why the option, once it is 'in-the-money', will track so closely to the underlying stock price. If someone buys an in-the-money option on the day of expiration, they are likely still expecting the price to go up before they sell it or exercise it. Many brokers will exercise your in-the-money options sometime after 3pm on the day of expiration. If this is not what you desire, you should communicate that with them prior to that day." }, { "docid": "125079", "title": "", "text": "\"That's pretty typical for stores closing. Remember that once the stores are conducting their closing sales, it's no longer the company that's in charge. It may say \"\"Sears\"\" on the sign, but it's actually an outside liquidation company that's operating the store. The liquidator is the one pricing the sales and applying the discounts. Their job is to get rid of everything and get as much money for it as they can. Liquidators will also sometimes bring in outside merchandise to closing stores in order to capitalize on the excitement of the going-out-of-business sales. [This news report](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMiBVlXctM8) shows a case where an outside liquidator brought in some oriental rugs to sell at a Linens N Things that was going out of business. Linens N Things never sold oriental rugs when it was a going concern, but the liquidator brought them in, complete with a sign saying what the price \"\"was\"\" and what the sale price is. Once you realize that a closing Sears store isn't actually Sears anymore, it all starts to fall into place.\"" }, { "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": "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": "271110", "title": "", "text": "\"To add to what other have stated, I recently just decided to purchase a home over renting some more, and I'll throw in some of my thoughts about my decision to buy. I closed a couple of weeks ago. Note that I live in Texas, and that I'm not knowledgeable in real estate other than what I learned from my experiences in the area when I am located. It depends on the market and location. You have to compare what renting will get you for the money vs what buying will get you. For me, buying seemed like a better deal overall when just comparing monthly payments. This is including insurance and taxes. You will need to stay at a house that you buy for at least 5-7 years. You first couple years of payments will go almost entirely towards interest. It takes a while to build up equity. If you can pay more towards a mortgage, do it. You need to have money in the bank already to close. The minimum down payment (at least in my area) is 3.5% for an FHA loan. If you put 20% down, you don't need to pay mortgage insurance, which is essentially throwing money away. You will also have add in closing costs. I ended up purchasing a new construction. My monthly payment went up from $1200 to $1600 (after taxes, insurance, etc.), but the house is bigger, newer, more energy efficient, much closer to my work, in a more expensive area, and in a market that is expected to go up in value. I had all of my closing costs (except for the deposit) taken care of by the lender and builder, so all of my closing costs I paid out of pocket went to the deposit (equity, or the \"\"bank\"\"). If I decide to move and need to sell, then I will get a lot (losing some to selling costs and interest) of the money I have put in to the house back out of it when I do sell, and I have the option to put that money towards another house. To sum it all up, I'm not paying a difference in monthly costs because I bought a house. I had my closing costs taking care of and just had to pay the deposit, which goes to equity. I will have to do maintenance myself, but I don't mind fixing what I can fix, and I have a builder's warranties on most things in the house. To really get a good idea of whether you should rent or buy, you need to talk to a Realtor and compare actual costs. It will be more expensive in the short term, but should save you money in the long term.\"" }, { "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": "431946", "title": "", "text": "At the higher level - yes. The value of an OTM (out of the money) option is pure time value. It's certainly possible that when the stock price gets close to that strike, the value of that option may very well offer you a chance to sell at a profit. Look at any OTM strike bid/ask and see if you can find the contract low for that option. Most will show that there was an opportunity to buy it lower at some point in the past. Your trade. Ask is meaningless when you own an option. A thinly traded one can be bid $0 /ask $0.50. What is the bid on yours?" } ]

[ { "docid": "523729", "title": "", "text": "But by closing the short position the broker would still be purchasing shares from the market no? Or at least, someone would be purchasing the shares to close the short position. So, why doesn't the broker just let Client A keep their short position open and buy shares in the market so that Client B can sell them...I know it sounds a bit ridic, but not much more so to me than letting Client A borrow the shares to begin with!" }, { "docid": "295344", "title": "", "text": "Trading at the start of the day is highest because of news flows that may have come after the close of the previous day. And trading at the end of the day is highest because of expected news flows after closing hours. Moreover, there are many day traders who buy in the morning without making any payment for purchase and such traders have to sell by evening or else they will have to make the payment for the purchases which they have made." }, { "docid": "55769", "title": "", "text": "A closed-end fund is a collective investment scheme that is closed to new investment once the fund starts operating. A typical open-ended fund will allow you to buy more shares of the fund anytime you want and the fund will create those new shares for you and invest your new money to continue growing assets under management. A closed-end fund only using the initial capital invested when the fund started operating and no new shares are typically created (always exception in the financial community). Normally you buy and sell an open-end fund from the fund company directly. A closed-end fund will usually be bought and sold on the secondary market. Here is some more information from Wikipedia Some characteristics that distinguish a closed-end fund from an ordinary open-end mutual fund are that: Another distinguishing feature of a closed-end fund is the common use of leverage or gearing to enhance returns. CEFs can raise additional investment capital by issuing auction rate securities, preferred shares, long-term debt, and/or reverse-repurchase agreements. In doing so, the fund hopes to earn a higher return with this excess invested capital." }, { "docid": "366824", "title": "", "text": "Well it all kind of depends. The Realtor is your pro, and you should communicate further with him. Is this a neighborhood on the decline? Is there a good reason to make such a low offer? Are you totally off base when you think 85K is fair, and if so why? Is he just working his tail off for you (a great thing)? One thing that is a key to this negotiation is financing. What does your financing status look like? A reasonable cash offer with no contingencies and a quick close might be less than 70K. A person with strong financing can get a better discount then a person that is questionable. It could be that the Realtor is testing the waters to find the bottom price. The home selling season is closed (typically the summer), and the home has been on the market for a bit. Offering 70K might mean a counter at 82K, so you can work on an offer between 80 and 82. To me, it sounds like this guy is working for you. You should thank him. It is pretty hard to find a realtor that is willing to negotiate his pay down in order to save you money. Also he can answer the closing cost question better than us as he is more familiar with your particular market." }, { "docid": "231737", "title": "", "text": "The cleanest way to accomplish this is to make the purchase of your new house contingent on the sale of your old one. Your offer should include that contingency and a date by which your house needs to sell to settle the contract. There will also likely be a clause that lets the seller cancel the contract within a period of time (like 24-48 hours) if another offer is received. This gives you (the buyer) at least an opportunity to either sell the house or come up with financing to complete the deal. For example, suppose you make an offer to buy a house for $300,000 contingent on the sale of your house, which the seller accepts. In the meantime, the seller gets an offer of $275,000 in cash (no contingency). The seller has to notify you of the offer and give you some time to make good on your offer, either by selling your house or obtaining $300,000 in financing. If you cannot, the seller can accept the cash offer. This is just a hypothetical example; the offer can have whatever clauses you agree to, but since sale contingencies benefit the buyer, the seller will generally want some compensation for that benefit, e.g. a larger offer or some other clause that benefits them. Or do I find a house to buy first, set a closing date far out and then use that time to sell my current one? Most sellers will not want to set a closing date very far out. Contingency clauses are far more common. In short, yes it's possible, and any competent realtor should be able to handle it. It also may mean that you have to either make a higher offer to compensate for the contingency and to dissuade the seller from entertaining other offers, or sell your home for less than you'd like to get the cash sooner. You can weigh those costs against the cost of financing the new house until yours sells." }, { "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": "151587", "title": "", "text": "This is dependent on the broker according to The Options Industry Council. Your broker will specify what they would do upon expiry (or hours before last trade) if you did not indicate your preference. Most likely they will conduct a probabilistic simulation to see whether exercising the contracts may result in margin deficit even after selling the delivered shares under extreme circumstances. In most cases, brokers tend to liquidate the option for you (sell to close) before expiry. I've seen people complain about certain brokers forcing liquidation at terrible bid-ask spreads even though the options are still days to expiry. It is better for you to close the position on your own beforehand. The best brokers would allow margin deficit and let you deposit the required amount of money afterward. Please consult your broker's materials. If you can't find them, use live chat or email tickets." }, { "docid": "197839", "title": "", "text": "As far as i understand the big companies on the stock markets have automated processes that sit VERY close to the stock feeds and continually processes these with the intention of identifying an opportunity to take multiple small lots and buy/sell them as a big lot or vice/versa and do this before a buy or sell completes, thus enabling them to intercept the trade and make a small profit on the delta. With enough of these small gains on enough shares they make big profits and with near zero chance of losing." }, { "docid": "236594", "title": "", "text": "\"The tricky part is that it's NAV is quite high these days, almost close to its 52 week high You will find, if you look historically, most markets are often close to their 52 week or even historical highs. This is an important consideration. \"\"The markets are at their all-time high!\"\" has been true a large percentage of the past decades. Everyone wants to buy low, sell high. But the reality is, buying low often will be \"\"buying at close to the highest point\"\" as no one has a crystal ball.\"" }, { "docid": "396738", "title": "", "text": "I own a gold mine and my cost of producing an ounce of gold is $600. Less than that, I lose money, anything over is profit. Today, at $1500, I sell futures to match my production for the next 2 years. I'm happy to lock in the profit. If gold goes to $3000, well, too bad, but if it drops to $500, I can still sell it for the $1500 as I mine it. I suppose I could also close out the contracts at a profit and still shut the mines down, but the point is illustrated." }, { "docid": "226984", "title": "", "text": "\"The settlement date for any trade is the date on which the seller gets the buyer's money and the buyer gets the seller's product. In US equities markets the settlement date is (almost universally) three trading days after the trade date. This settlement period gives the exchanges, the clearing houses, and the brokers time to figure out how many shares and how many dollars need to actually be moved around in order to give everyone what they're owed (and then to actually do all that moving around). So, \"\"settling\"\" a short trade is the same thing as settling any other trade. It has nothing to do with \"\"closing\"\" (or covering) the seller's short position. Q: Is this referring to when a short is initiated, or closed? A: Initiated. If you initiate a short position by selling borrowed shares on day 1, then settlement occurs on day 4. (Regardless of whether your short position is still open or has been closed.) Q: All open shorts which are still open by the settlement date have to be reported by the due date. A: Not exactly. The requirement is that all short positions evaluated based on their settlement dates (rather than their trade dates) still open on the deadline have to be reported by the due date. You sell short 100 AAPL on day 1. You then cover that short by buying 100 AAPL on day 2. As far as the clearing houses and brokers are concerned, however, you don't even get into the short position until your sell settles at the end of day 4, and you finally get out of your short position (in their eyes) when your buy settles at the end of day 5. So imagine the following scenarios: The NASDAQ deadline happens to be the end of day 2. Since your (FINRA member) broker has been told to report based on settlement date, it would report no open position for you in AAPL even though you executed a trade to sell on day 1. The NASDAQ deadline happens to be the end of day 3. Your sell still has not settled, so there's still no open position to report for you. The NASDAQ deadline happens to be the end of day 4. Your sell has settled but your buy has not, so the broker reports a 100 share open short position for you. The NASDAQ deadline happens to be the end of day 5. Your sell and buy have both settled, so the broker once again has no open position to report for you. So, the point is that when dealing with settlement dates you just pretend the world is 3 days behind where it actually is.\"" }, { "docid": "336011", "title": "", "text": "\"No. The more legs you add onto your trade, the more commissions you will pay entering and exiting the trade and the more opportunity for slippage. So lets head the other direction. Can we make a simple, risk-free option trade, with as few legs as possible? The (not really) surprising answer is \"\"yes\"\", but there is no free lunch, as you will see. According to financial theory any riskless position will earn the risk free rate, which right now is almost nothing, nada, 0%. Let's test this out with a little example. In theory, a riskless position can be constructed from buying a stock, selling a call option, and buying a put option. This combination should earn the risk free rate. Selling the call option means you get money now but agree to let someone else have the stock at an agreed contract price if the price goes up. Buying the put option means you pay money now but can sell the stock to someone at a pre-agreed contract price if you want to do so, which would only be when the price declines below the contract price. To start our risk free trade, buy Google stock, GOOG, at the Oct 3 Close: 495.52 x 100sh = $49,552 The example has 100 shares for compatibility with the options contracts which require 100 share blocks. we will sell a call and buy a put @ contract price of $500 for Jan 19,2013. Therefore we will receive $50,000 for certain on Jan 19,2013, unless the options clearing system fails, because of say, global financial collapse, or war with Aztec spacecraft. According to google finance, if we had sold a call today at the close we would receive the bid, which is 89.00/share, or $8,900 total. And if we had bought a put today at the close we would pay the ask, which is 91.90/share, or $9190 total. So, to receive $50,000 for certain on Jan 19,2013 we could pay $49,552 for the GOOG stock, minus $8,900 for the money we received selling the call option, plus a payment of $9190 for the put option we need to protect the value. The total is $49,842. If we pay $49,842 today, plus execute the option strategy shown, we would have $50,000 on Jan 19,2013. This is a profit of $158, the options commissions are going to be around $20-$30, so in total the profit is around $120 after commissions. On the other hand, ~$50,000 in a bank CD for 12 months at 1.1% will yield $550 in similarly risk-free interest. Given that it is difficult to actually make these trades simultaneously, in practice, with the prices jumping all around, I would say if you really want a low risk option trade then a bank CD looks like the safer bet. This isn't to say you can't find another combination of stock and contract price that does better than a bank CD -- but I doubt it will ever be better by very much and still difficult to monitor and align the trades in practice.\"" }, { "docid": "269061", "title": "", "text": "The ex-dividend date is the first date on which you may sell without losing your dividend. In this case that date is August 5th (thanks, Victor). The price opens on the ex-dividend date lower than it closed on the previous day (by the amount of the dividend). Therefore you may sell any time on August 5th (including during pre-market trading) and still get the dividend. You must be the owner of the stock as of the end of after-hours trading on the 4th (and therefore overnight) in order to get the dividend. Intel's Dividend Dates The record date isn't important to your trading decision." }, { "docid": "567244", "title": "", "text": "When the deal closes, will it be as if I sold all of my ESPP shares with regards to taxes? Probably. If the deal is for cash and not stock exchange, then once the deal is approved and closed all the existing shareholders will sell their shares to the buyer for cash. Is there any way to mitigate this? Unlikely. You need to understand that ESPP is just a specific way to purchase shares, it doesn't give you any special rights or protections that other shareholders don't have." }, { "docid": "521529", "title": "", "text": "Because Amazon is not even close to being a monopoly. Look at Wal-Mart revenue to Amazon revenue (even with AWS and everything else). Not even close to being the largest retailer. They are just the largest e commerce retailer. Even there, they still aren't a monopoly. Add in the fact that a lot of amazon sales are marketplace sales (other online vendors selling through amazon), and you see that Amazon isn't even close to being a monopoly. Amazon is just really good at retail. Being so good at something that you gain market share is not covered under anti trust law." }, { "docid": "225774", "title": "", "text": "The time value decay is theoretically constant. In reality, it is driven by supply and demand, just like everything else in the market. For instance, if a big earnings announcement is coming out after the close for the day, you may see little or no time decay in the price of the options during the day before. Also, while in theory options have a set value as related to the trading price of the underlying security, that does not mean there will always be a buyer willing to pay a premium as they come close to expiration (in the last few minutes). You can't forget to account for the transaction fees associated with buying the options, or the risk factor involved. It is rare, but there are times I've actually had to sell in the money calls at a penny or two LESS than they're actually worth at the time just to unload them in the last few minutes before the market closed on expiration day." }, { "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": "60088", "title": "", "text": "When evaluating a refinance, it all comes down to the payback. Refinancing costs money in closing costs. There are different reasons for refinancing, and they all have different methods for calculating payback. One reason to finance is to get a lower interest rate. When determining the payback time, you calculate how long it would take to recover your closing costs with the amount you save in interest. For example, if the closing costs are $2,000, your payback time is 2 years if it takes 2 years to save that amount in interest with the new interest rate vs. the old one. The longer you hold the mortgage after you refinance, the more money you save in interest with the new rate. Generally, it doesn't pay to refinance to a lower rate right before you sell, because you aren't holding the mortgage long enough to see the interest savings. You seem to be 3 years away from selling, so you might be able to see some savings here in the next three years. A second reason people refinance is to lower their monthly payment if they are having trouble paying it. I see you are considering switching from a 15 year to a 30 year; is one of your goals to reduce your monthly payment? By refinancing to a 30 year, you'll be paying a lot of interest in your first few years of payments, extending the payback time of your lower interest rate. A third reason people refinance is to pull cash out of their equity. This applies to you as well. Since you are planning on using it to remodel the home you are trying to sell, you have to ask yourself if the renovations you are planning will payoff in the increased sale price of your home. Often, renovations don't increase the value of their home as much as they cost. You do renovations because you will enjoy living in the renovated home, and you get some of your money back when you sell. But sometimes you can increase the value of your home by enough to cover the cost of the renovation. Talk to a real estate agent in your area to get their advice on how much the renovations you are talking about will increase the value of your home." }, { "docid": "309143", "title": "", "text": "The other aspect that you're not mentioning that makes TJ so special is their churn rate. Because they only sell a limited number of versions per category (no multiple brands -mostly self branded) nothing just sits on the shelves. So they do massive amounts of volume on almost everything that gets put in their store. also I have never seen anywhere sell macadamia nuts anywhere close to their price." } ]

[ { "docid": "574777", "title": "", "text": "Here is one from a Bloomberg partnership, it is free. To get the end of day prices, you may need some programming done. PM me if you need help with that. Getting bond quotes and general information about a bond issue is considerably more difficult than researching a stock or a mutual fund. A major reason for this is that there is not a lot of individual investor demand for the information; therefore, most bond information is available only through higher level tools that are not accessible to the average investor. Read more: Where can I get bond market quotes? | Investopedia http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/06/bondquote.asp#ixzz3wXVwv3s5" } ]

[ { "docid": "225818", "title": "", "text": "You need a source of delisted historical data. Such data is typically only available from paid sources. According to my records 20 Feb 2006 was not a trading day - it was Preisdent's Day and the US exchanges were closed. The prior trading date to this was 17 Feb 2006 where the stock had the following data: Open: 14.40 High 14.46 Low 14.16 Close 14.32 Volume 1339800 (consolidated volume) Source: Symbol NVE-201312 within Premium Data US delisted stocks historical data set available from http://www.premiumdata.net/products/premiumdata/ushistorical.php Disclosure: I am a co-owner of Norgate / Premium Data." }, { "docid": "271661", "title": "", "text": "\"All the other answers here are correct, but I'll add one more perspective. I am a business architect at one of the world's largest retail banks. Every day I experience the frustration of trying to get large-scale corporate IT to do anything, so I feel that your question is just one facet of the wider question: \"\"why are banks so old and busted?\"\" While it's true that the cost of online, redundant, performant, secure data storage is significantly higher than you anticipate in the question, it should still be well within the capacity of a large enterprise. The true cost is the cost of change. Nothing at a bank is a green field development. Everything is a bolt-on to existing systems. Any change brings the risk that existing functionality will be affected, therefore vast schemes of regression testing (largely manually executed) spring up around even the most trivial developments. Costs scale exponentially with the number of platforms affected (often utterly distinct, decades-old, incompatible platforms that have arisen out of historical mergers and acquisitions). Only statutory, revenue-generating and critical maintenance change is approved. Any form of cost-cutting that increases risk is quickly extinguished. This is because when things go wrong, IT get blamed by their business colleagues. This is because the business colleagues in turn get blamed by the regulators, the media, the customers, and the public at large. Who doesn't cuss their bank when the ATM is unavailable? The bank's IT organization develops a kind of management sclerosis, risk averse in the extreme. Banks can't ship a beta version and patch it later. This ultra-low-innovation approach is a direct result of market and regulatory forces. If you were happy with a bank account that played fast and loose with your money the way Facebook plays with your data, then banking would be much cheaper, much more innovative, and much riskier. To get back to your specific question, some banks actually do offer a much longer back catalog of transactions for download (usually only a few key fields of each transaction though), and the ones that don't most likely don't see it as a revenue generating selling point, and it therefore falls above their innovation appetite.\"" }, { "docid": "117395", "title": "", "text": "The store keeps track of what you buy. It is all part of their big data. The knowledge of what you buy helps them project future sales. It allows them to target their marketing. But maybe even more importantly they can sell this knowledge to outside companies. They aren't going to give away that information to another company that would love to have that data, just so they could sell it. Stores use those loyalty cards to be able to link your household to those purchases. Those discounts, or free products, are what they use to entice you to give up your privacy. The fact that in your town young adults love caramel apples, even more than the town next door, makes them confident that your town will love caramel apple scented shampoo. Thus they send you coupons when it become available. They will also sell this knowledge to the shampoo companies. Do some stores make it possible for you to download the data? Yes they do. Apple stores send all receipts via email. Kohls allows me to see detail information about my transactions on line. There must be others. I don't know if any are grocery stores." }, { "docid": "315983", "title": "", "text": "Hey Forum, I recently had an update to the app where it now allows you to find out your markup percentage. All you have to do is put in your desired profit at the end of the month and then put in how many items you want to sell each month and the entire formula is calculated for you in less than a second. Extremely convenient and extremely time-saving. You can download the Android version here: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.markupmagic.companymarkup&amp;hl=en And the iOS here: https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/markup-magic-profit-calculator/id1183206273?mt=8 We are currently redoing the website so you can look out for that soon enough. :) As always, suggestions and comments are always welcome as we want this to be the best app it can be for users. Take care and have a wonderful time." }, { "docid": "394151", "title": "", "text": "If you download the historical data from Yahoo, you will see two different close prices. The one labeled 'Close' is simply the price that was quoted on that particular day. The one labeled 'Adj Close' is the close price that has been adjusted for any splits and dividends that have occurred after that date. For example, if a stock splits 10:1 on a particular date, then the adjusted close for all dates prior to that split will have been divided by 10. If a dividend is paid, then all dates prior will have that amount subtracted from their adjusted quote. Using the adjusted close allows you to compare any two dates and see the true relative return." }, { "docid": "346735", "title": "", "text": "\"First of all, setting some basics: What is a sound way to measure the risk of each investment in order to compare them with each other ? There is no single way that can be used across all asset classes / risks. Generally speaking, you want to perform both a quantitative and qualitative assessment of risks that you identify. Quantitative risk assessment may involve historical data and/or parametric or non-parametric models. Using historical data is often simple but may be hard in cases where the amount of data you have on a given event is low (e.g. risk of bust by investing in a cryptocurrency). Parametric and non-parametric risk quantification models exist (e.g. Value at Risk (VaR), Expected Shortfall (ES), etc) and abound but a lot of them are more complicated than necessary for an individual's requirements. Qualitative risk assessment is \"\"simply\"\" assessing the likelihood and severity of risks by using intuition, expert judgment (where that applies), etc. One may consult with outside parties (e.g. lawyers, accountants, bankers, etc) where their advisory may help highlighting some risks or understanding them better. To ease comparing investment opportunities, you may want to perform a risk assessment on categories of risks (e.g. investing in the stock market vs bond market). To compare between those categories, one should look at the whole picture (quantitative and qualitative) with their risk appetite in mind. Of course, after taking those macro decisions, you would need to further assess risks on more micro decisions (e.g. Microsoft or Google ?). You would then most likely end up with better comparatives as you would be comparing items similar in nature. Should I always consider the worst case scenario ? Because when I do that, I always can lose everything. Generally speaking, you want to consider everything so that you can perform a risk assessment and decide on your risk mitigating strategy (see Q4). By assessing the likelihood and severity of risks you may find that even in cases where you are comparatively as worse-off (e.g. in case of complete bust), the likelihood may differ. For example, keeping gold in a personal stash at home vs your employer going bankrupt if you are working for a large firm. Do note that you want to compare risks (both likelihood and severity) after any risk mitigation strategy you may want to put in place (e.g. maybe putting your gold in a safety box in a secure bank would make the likelihood of losing your gold essentially null). Is there a way to estimate the probability of such events, better than intuition ? Estimating probability or likelihood is largely dependent on data on hand and your capacity to model events. For most practical purposes of an individual, modelling would be way off in terms of reward-benefits. You may therefore want to simply research on past events and assign them a 1-5 (1 being very low, 5 being very high) risk rating based on your assessment of the likelihood. For example, you may assign a 1 on your employer going bankrupt and a 2 or 3 on being burglarized. This is only slightly better than intuition but has the merit of being based on data (e.g. frequency of burglary in your neighborhood). Should I only consider more probable outcomes and have a plan for them if they occur? This depends largely on your risk appetite. The more risk averse you are, the more thorough you will want to be in identifying, tracking and mitigating risks. For the risks that you have identified as relevant, or of concern, you may opt to establish a risk mitigating strategy, which is conventionally one of accepting, sharing (by taking insurance, for example), avoiding and reducing. It may not be possible to share or reduce some risks, especially for individuals, and so often the response will be either to accept or avoid the given risks by opting in or out on an opportunity.\"" }, { "docid": "332229", "title": "", "text": "Hey. Currently in treasury. It's good in some ways and bad in others. Every role has it's pluses and minuses. Some basic thoughts are that you get to see a lot of the company. You get a cursory view of what everyone is doing, all the time, but you don't really ever get in depth views of any one area. It's a role that makes it easy to jump around industries because every large company has a treasury department, but it limits the size of the company you can join because a lot of small companies won't have one or will just have a cash person and not an actual department. You get to look at bond and commercial paper markets, if that's interesting to you. You get a lot of interaction with higher ups because cash is hugely important. You're the first to know if the company is gonna go bankrupt. It's a good place to learn the business if you end up wanting to move, but it's a pretty specific skill set and carries a decent amount of responsibility. It's one of the only corporate finance roles that's closer to front office than mid or back office. If you are just joining corporate treasury, you'll probably start out doing cash management and forecasting, maybe doing short term liquidity and investment activity. After that, you would move into bond stuff, pensions/401k management, corporate finance stuff as opposed to the cash desk. After that, you'd probably get to be involved in stuff like long term planning and M&amp;A activity, which is the real cool shit. That's what came off the top of my head. Do you have any specific questions?" }, { "docid": "432828", "title": "", "text": "\"This would inevitably lead to a few gatekeepers from which everyone trusts the bonds (ibm GE etc), and millions of small businesses which will have absolutely no access to capital. Once this happens, you will quickly end up with a shadow banking system, where companies like GE switch from making stuff to basically being banks, giving loans to other small businesses with no access to capital, etc. This is basically done in China in a slightly different way, but, the core state-owned enterprises have near unlimited access to capital, and they use this advantage to invest in, and buy up, any and all interesting companies, simply because they're the only organizations that can essentially \"\"print\"\" money. (Whether you agree with it being printing money or not, the fact is GE / IBM would be able to issue bonds almost whenever they want, similar to the Treasury's monthly bond auctions, and other firms simply unable to.) So... then you have a few key companies with nearly unlimited right to \"\"print\"\" (used loosely) cash. They use this advantage to push on other businesses, buy them up, or control them in many ways. And then they use this position to eventually take over anything that looks interesting. What you're imagining as being an open market where everyone's bonds have full information will quickly devolve into information overload, and people choosing the well known brands as their trusted source. Once that happens, the whole idea falls apart, and those few firms will find a way to control not only the money supply, but also who gets to use their money. You will also have situations where some mom-and-pop takes John-LLC bonds as payment for dinner, and when they try to give John-LLC bonds to their suppliers, their suppliers say 'no thanks, we only deal in IBM bonds.\"\" Mom-and-pop will find themselves stuck with paper that nobody wants to accept. And mom-and-pop will quickly find themselves in a cash flow crisis, as they have tons of paper, but none of their suppliers will accept that paper. The only way to get out of this situation would be to convince IBM or GE to give Mom-and-pop some GE bonds in exchange for the John-LLC they have that nobody will accept. Of course, GE and IBM being in the enviable position as some of the few trusted money printers can refuse to accept John-LLC bonds except at a severe discount. \"\"We know John gave you John-LLC bonds to pay for his dinner worth $100, but, we'll only give you $40 worth of GE bonds for it.\"\" Mom-and-pop will quickly be fucked and go out of business due to having no \"\"hard currency\"\" (aka trusted currency) that they can use to purchase their raw materials. Demand for GE bonds will skyrocket as everyone seeks a safe-haven (a trusted currency almost everyone will accept), adn GE will find the entire market begging them to print bonds even at no interest just so that the money supply can increase to hold the full amount of trade occurring in the territory. This is then no different from the Fed during the recession a few years ago (and up until now) where they sell tons of bonds at rock-bottom interest rates simly because all the world is looking for a safe place to put their cash. The difference, of course, is that GE / IBM can take all this money and issue themselves HUGE bonuses, either on the cash directly or on the profit they've amassed by being the only trusted money issuer, whereas government officials can not.\"" }, { "docid": "241444", "title": "", "text": "If you need access to your data beyond the online availability, you download the transactions and manage the archive yourself. Six months to eighteen months is generally enough time for most people to manage their own archived data. Big banks have the power to store and retrieve all the data online. Unfortunately, the older records are not frequently accessed. Why have these records online when they will be rarely accessed? Backing up data will take longer. Queries to retrieve data will take longer. Everything will take longer just so you can have records that 99% of customers will never access." }, { "docid": "185156", "title": "", "text": "\"All bonds carry a risk of default, which means that it's possible that you can lose your principal investment in addition to potentially not getting the interest payments that you expect. Bonds (in the US anyway) are graded, so you can manage this risk somewhat by taking higher quality bonds, i.e. in companies or governments that are considered more creditworthy. Regular bank savings (again specific to the US) are insured by FDIC, so even if your bank goes bust, the US Government is backing them up to some limit. That makes such accounts less risky. There's generally no insurance on a bond, even if it is issued by a government entity. If you do your homework on the bond rating system and choose bonds in a rating band where you're comfortable, this could be a good option for you. You'll find, however, that the bond market also \"\"knows\"\" that the interest rates are generally low, so be ware that higher interest issues are usually coming from less creditworthy (and therefore more risky) issuers. EDIT Here's some additional information based on the follow-up question in the comment. When you buy a bond you are actually making a loan to the issuer. They will pay you interest over the lifetime of the bond and then return your principal at the end of the term. (Verify this payment schedule - This is typical, but you should be sure that whatever you're buying works like this.) This is not an investment in the value of the issuer itself like you would be making if you bought stock. With stock you are taking an ownership share in the company. This might entitle you to dividends if the company pays them, but otherwise your investment value on a stock will be tied to the performance of the company. With the bond, the company might be in decline but the bond still a good investment so long as the company doesn't decline so much that they cannot pay their debts. Also, bonds can be issued by governments, but governments do not sell stock. (An \"\"ownership share of the government\"\" would not make sense.) This may be the so-called sovereign debt if issued by a sovereign government or it may be local (we call it municipal here in the US) debt issued by a subordinate level of government. Bonds are a little bit like stock in the sense that there's a secondary market for them. That means that if you get partway through the length of the bond and don't want to hold it, you can sell the bond to someone else. Of course, it will be harder to sell a bond later if the company becomes insolvent or if the interest rates go up between when you buy and when you sell. Depending on these market factors, you might end up with a capital gain or capital loss (meaning you get more or less than the principal that you put into the bond) at the time of a sale.\"" }, { "docid": "215540", "title": "", "text": "\"There are several reasons to pay for data instead of using Yahoo Finance, although these reasons don't necessarily apply to you if you're only planning to use the data for personal use. Yahoo will throttle you if you attempt to download too much data in a short time period. You can opt to use the Yahoo Query Language (YQL), which does provide another interface to their financial data apart from simply downloading the CSV files. Although the rate limit is higher for YQL, you may still run into it. An API that a paid data provider exposes will likely have higher thresholds. Although the reliability varies throughout the site, Yahoo Finance isn't considered the most reliable of sources. You can't beat free, of course, but at least for research purposes, the Center for Research in Security Prices (CRSP) at UChicago and Wharton is considered the gold standard. On the commercial side, data providers like eSignal, Bloomberg, Reuters also enjoy widespread popularity. Although both the output from YQL and Yahoo's current CSV output are fairly standard, they won't necessarily remain that way. A commercial API is basically a contract with the data provider that they won't change the format without significant prior notice, but it's reasonable to assume that if Yahoo wanted to, they could make minor changes to the format and break many commercial applications. A change in Yahoo's format would likely break many sites or applications too, but their terms of use do state that Yahoo \"\"may change, suspend, or discontinue any aspect of the Yahoo! Finance Modules at any time, including the availability of any Yahoo! Finance Modules. Yahoo! may also impose limits on certain features and services or restrict your access to parts or all of the Yahoo! Finance Modules or the Yahoo! Web site without notice or liability.\"\" If you're designing a commercial application, a paid provider will probably provide technical support for their API. According to Yahoo Finance's license terms, you can't use the data in a commercial application unless you specifically use their \"\"badges\"\" (whatever those are). See here. In this post, a Yahoo employee states: The Finance TOS is fairly specific. Redistribution of data is only allowed if you are using the badges the team has created. Otherwise, you can use YQL or whatever method to obtain data for personal use. The license itself states that you may not: sell, lease, or sublicense the Yahoo! Finance Modules or access thereto or derive income from the use or provision of the Yahoo! Finance Modules, whether for direct commercial or monetary gain or otherwise, without Yahoo!'s prior, express, written permission In short, for personal use, Yahoo Finance is more than adequate. For research or commercial purposes, a data provider is a better option. Furthermore, many commercial applications require more data than Yahoo provides, e.g. tick-by-tick data for equities, derivatives, futures, data on mergers, etc., which a paid data source will likely provide. Yahoo is also known for inaccuracies in its financial statements; I can't find any examples at the moment, but I had a professor who enjoyed pointing out flaws in the 10K's that he had come across. I've always assumed this is because the data were manually entered, although I would assume EDGAR has some method for automatic retrieval. If you want data that are guaranteed to be accurate, or at least have a support contract associated with them so you know who to bother if it isn't, you'll need to pay for it.\"" }, { "docid": "141174", "title": "", "text": "Smallest risk of default would depend on where Alice and Bob live I suppose, but lets assume they are in a lower yielding nation where default is not a big concern. Remember for instance that Greece was a lower yielding nation at one point and that the US has defaulted before. Let's start with Bob because he is easier to analyze. Yield curves inversions generally pre-date recessions which is generally not so good for Bob as rates tend to drop during recessions and he will be at the short end of the curve so his bonds will be less sensitive. However, he will generally get higher yields in good times to make up for this, but these higher yields come with a price in that he is generally much more sensitive to yield changes and can get much larger swings in portfolio value. First off as JB mentioned Alice would likely own inflation-linked (IL) bonds. Which behave fairly differently from Bob's bonds. However, to keep this simple lets say they live in a place without IL bonds or IL bonds are not a consideration. Then generally Alice has lower yielding bonds in good times but may do very well when the fed steps in during a crisis. So, who wins in the long run? Likely Christi who owns a mix of a broad index of stocks and bonds in a risk mix where she wouldn't have to sell in downturns. Especially, as Christi wouldn't have to pay the trading costs of moving her whole portfolio between long and short bonds. Between Bob and Alice however Bob would likely win in the long run as the markets generally reward risk taking in the long run. Still inflation (even without the IL bonds) and general rate trends (long-term rates are historically low right now) could have Bob losing for uncomfortably long periods." }, { "docid": "161230", "title": "", "text": "This is a bit of an open-ended answer as certain assumptions must be covered. Hope it helps though. My concern is that you have 1 year of university left - is there a chance that this money will be needed to fund this year of uni? And might it be needed for the period between uni and starting your first job? If the answer is 'yes' to either of these, keep any money you have as liquid as possible - ie. cash in an instant access Cash ISA. If the answer is 'no', let's move on... Are you likely to touch this money in the next 5 years? I'm thinking house & flat deposits - whether you rent or buy, cars, etc, etc. If yes, again keep it liquid in a Cash ISA but this time, perhaps look to get a slightly better interest rate by fixing for a 1 year or 2 year at a time. Something like MoneySavingExpert will show you best buy Cash ISAs. If this money is not going to be touched for more than 5 years, then things like bonds and equities come into play. Ultimately your appetite for risk determines your options. If you are uncomfortable with swings in value, then fixed-income products with fixed-term (ie. buy a bond, hold the bond, when the bond finishes, you get your money back plus the yield [interest]) may suit you better than equity-based investments. Equity-based means alot of things - stocks in just one company, an index tracker of a well-known stock market (eg. FTSE100 tracker), actively managed growth funds, passive ETFs of high-dividend stocks... And each of these has different volatility (price swings) and long-term performance - as well as different charges and risks. The only way to understand this is to learn. So that's my ultimate advice. Learn about bonds. Learn about equities. Learn about gilts, corporate bonds, bond funds, index trackers, ETFs, dividends, active v passive management. In the meantime, keep the money in a Cash ISA - where £1 stays £1 plus interest. Once you want to lock the money away into a long-term investment, then you can look at Stocks ISAs to protect the investment against taxation. You may also put just enough into a pension get the company 'match' for contributions. It's not uncommon to split your long-term saving between the two routes. Then come back and ask where to go next... but chances are you'll know yourself by then - because you self-educated. If you want an alternative to the US-based generic advice, check out my Simple Steps concept here (sspf.co.uk/seven-simple-steps) and my free posts on this framework at sspf.co.uk/blog. I also host a free weekly podcast at sspf.co.uk/podcast (also on iTunes, Miro, Mixcloud, and others...) They were designed to offer exactly that kind of guidance to the UK for free." }, { "docid": "325370", "title": "", "text": "\"A few points that I would note: Call options - Could the bond be called away by the issuer? This is something to note as some bonds may end up not being as good as one thought because of this option that gets used. Tax considerations - Are you going for corporate, Treasury, or municipals? Different ones may have different tax consequences to note if you aren't holding the bond in a tax-advantaged account,e.g. Roth IRA, IRA or 401k. Convertible or not? - Some bonds are known as \"\"convertibles\"\" since the bond comes with an option on the stock that can be worth considering for some kinds of bonds. Inflation protection - Some bonds like TIPS or series I savings bonds can have inflation protection built into them that can also be worth understanding. In the case of TIPS, there are principal adjustments while the savings bond will have a change in its interest rate. Default risk - Some of the higher yield bonds may have an issuer go under which is another way one may end up with equity in a company rather than getting their money back. On the other side, for some municipals one could have the risk of the bond not quite being as good as one thought like some Detroit bonds that may end up in a different result given their bankruptcy but there are also revenue bonds that may not meet their target for another situation that may arise. Some bonds may be insured though this requires a bit more research to know the credit rating of the insurer. As for the latter question, what if interest rates rise and your bond's value drops considerably? Do you hold it until maturity or do you try to sell it and get something that has a higher yield based on face value?\"" }, { "docid": "89181", "title": "", "text": "\"If by \"\"putting money in the bank\"\" you mean regular savings or checking, then the bond locks a rate for a period of time, whereas your savings/checking rate can vary over that period. That variation might go for you or against you. Depending on your situation, you might prefer to take a determined rate to the variations. In addition, some bond types provide tax benefits (e.g. treasuries and municipal bonds) that change the effective return - You cannot just compare the interest rates. Finally, the bonds have \"\"resale\"\" value on the secondary market like stock - Depending on your outlook and strategy, you might by the bond for its value as a security rather than for the interest specifically just like you'd could buy a dividend-paying stock for its value as a security rather than for the dividend. In other words, you might think that bond values are going up, so you buy bonds with the intent of making a capital gain rather than counting on the interest returned. (The bond market does depend on the interest rate, so these are not independent factors.) I see the other answer that mentions the potential for your bank busting and you losing money beyond the FDIC insurance limit. The question doesn't specify U.S. Government bonds though, so I don't think that answer is generally good. It would be good in the case that you had a lot of money (especially an institution or foreign government) and you were specifically interested in U.S. Treasury bonds. Not so much if you invest in corporate bonds where you have no government insurance / assurance of any sort. Municipal bounds are also not backed by the U.S. (federal) government, but they may have some backing at the state level, depending on the state.\"" }, { "docid": "78342", "title": "", "text": "\"What do I mean by infrastructure? Well, if you're doing algorithmic trading, you have to have something monitoring data and making decisions on its own, presumably. How do you set that up? There are many ways, and some are better than others. First is a problem of scale. If you're a newbie starting out with some small set of equity tick data, perhaps just trades for instance, you can whip together something that can handle that pretty easily. Check out http://www.marketdatapeaks.com/ though. That's your messaging rates you have to deal with once you go full data feeds direct from all the exchanges. 6.65 million messages/events per second. That's a lot. And if you fall behind, you lose your lunch. Building a robust system that allows you to easily backtest and deploy strategies is crucial as well. The speed at which you're able to conduct the backtest matters a lot. Doing that rapidly, and accurately is not easy. For a broad market-data handling algo design (and now, clearly, for very specific things you can design one that'll handle stuff better for that one corner case, but this is for general algo trading), optimally you have some sort of setup where you have a: [feed handlers] -&gt; [tickerplant] -&gt; [mkt data subscribers/CEP] -&gt; [order management system] -&gt; [broker] in this setup you have feed handlers that are taking the raw exchange feeds and pushing them to a consolidated tickerplant, where CEP subscribers can come through and sub to the data they want (perhaps I just want ES futures on one, and only want to arb CMCSA and CMCSK on another -- you dont want each CEP subscriber getting your full feed for all tickers all the time, its a waste). so more or less, each independent strategy is its own subscriber to the tickerplant, taking whatever data it wants and only that data (could be \"\"give me all the trades and quotes for all nasdaq stocks, but not book depth\"\" for instance). your CEP does whatever maths it has to do to figure out trading decisions, and when it does, it sends it to your order management system which does your risk checks, etc (\"\"do you have enough money to place this trade?\"\" \"\"do you already have a position in this?\"\" \"\"are you trading against yourself?\"\" ... million other things). your OMS knows how to talk to your broker/directly to the exchange depending on your setup. Assuming all your risk checks pass, off the order goes to the exchange, and it deals with the fill msgs, etc. Now, as far as speed is concerned - try to do all of this at 6.5 million events/second. It's hard. Some strats/cep subscribers will run faster than others, some are slower, some need to keep a full book to work while some work on just trades. Your OMS depending on if youre using only market data sources may need to keep its own book to place orders on behalf of your subscribers if they lack information about various markets (think all the twitter trading bots these days for instance), etc. If you look back at the above setup as well, you'll notice some interesting things. [tickerplant] -&gt; [cep subscriber] portion can stay the same for live trading or backtesting. This is huge. The only thing that changes here for backtesting is that if you're trying to backtest, you can take historical data (query it out of your hopefully column-store database) and push it into your tickerplant rather than having it come from a live feed through the feed handler. Your tickerplant and cep subscriber will never know the difference, so you can use the same exact code for backtesting as you can for live. On the other end, you obviously cant send historical orders to your live broker, so you need to code a simulated OMS that does the backtest simulation (another huge piece of software to code that is hard to do well). But, for backtesting, your setup is staying largely the same except those two end pieces. This means that testing/deving/deploying strats can be pretty rapid, and uses the same code base for live and historical, which helps you eliminate bugs and have to code everything twice. Backtesting design: [historical mkt data db] -&gt; [tickerplant] -&gt; [mkt data subscribers/CEP] -&gt; [order management system simulator/backtester] These are just a few of the many problems that you hit when trying to dev good infra. There are like a million more. Point was simply, it's complicated. And C++ is a good lang. I use a wide variety of languages depending on exactly whats going on and how fast the code needs to be. With a proper tickerplant design, youre using some ipc protocol so a subscriber can be coded in any language. Check out http://www.zeromq.org/ -- thats an excellent piece of software to use to make a tickerplant out of, think they even have a design for one in the docs if I recall. With that, your CEP subscribers can be in any language - perhaps pure C if you need the speed, perhaps .NET or Java if you dont (check out http://esper.codehaus.org/ for a Java implement of a CEP subscriber, nEsper for the C# port of that I believe). But I use C, C++, C#, python, R, x86 asm for a few very minor things, and a lang or two I can't mention here.\"" }, { "docid": "85484", "title": "", "text": "\"In the US, stocks are listed on one exchange but can be traded on multiple venues. You need to confirm exactly what your data is showing: a) trades on the primary-listed exchange; or b) trades made at any venue. Also, the trade condition codes are important. Only certain trade condition codes contribute towards the day's open/high/low/close and some others only contribute towards the volume data. The Consolidated Tape Association is very clear on which trades should contribute towards each value - but some vendors have their own interpretation (or just simply an erroneous interpretation of the specifications). It may surprise you to find that the majority of trading volume for many stocks is not on their primary-listed exchange. For example, on 2 Mar 2015, NASDAQ:AAPL traded a total volume across all venues was 48096663 shares but trading on NASDAQ itself was 12050277 shares. Trades can be cancelled. Some data vendors do not modify their data to reflect these busted trades. Some data vendors also \"\"snapshot\"\" their feed at a particular point in time of the data. Some exchanges can provide data (mainly corrections) 4-5 hours after the closing bell. By snapshotting the data too early and throwing away any subsequent data is a typical cause of data discrepancies. Some data vendors also round prices/volumes - but stocks don't just trade to two decimal places. So you may well be comparing two different sets of trades (with their own specific inclusion rules) against the same stock. You need to confirm with your data sources exactly how they do things. Disclosure: Premium Data is an end-of-day daily data vendor.\"" }, { "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": "382236", "title": "", "text": "\"The most common use of non-deductible Traditional IRA contributions these days, as JoeTaxpayer mentioned, is as an intermediate step in a \"\"backdoor Roth IRA contribution\"\" -- contribute to a Traditional IRA and then immediately convert it to a Roth IRA, which, if you had no previous pre-tax money in Traditional or other IRAs, is a tax-free process that achieves the same result as a regular Roth IRA contribution except that there are no income limits. (This is something you should consider since you are unable to directly contribute to a Roth IRA due to income limits.) Also, I want to note that your comparison is only true assuming you are holding tax-efficient assets, ones where you get taxed once at the end when you take it out. If you are holding tax-inefficient assets, like an interest-bearing CD or bond or a stock that regularly produces dividends, in a taxable account you would be taxed many times on that earnings, and that would be much worse than with the non-deductible Traditional IRA, where you would only be taxed once at the end when you take it out.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "448890", "title": "", "text": "As always with investments, it depends on your risk adversity. I don't want to repeat the content of hundreds of recommendations here, so just the nutshell: (For qualified investments,) the more risk you are willing to take, the more returns you'll get. The upper end is the mutual funds and share market, where you have long-term expectations of 8 - 10 % (and corresponding risks of maybe +/- 50% per year), the lower end is a CD, where you can expect little to no interest, corresponding to little to no risk. Investing in shares/funds is not 'better' than investing in CDs, it is different. Not everybody likes financial roller-coasters, and some people mainly consider the high risk, which gives them sleepless nights; while others just consider the expected high long-term gains as all that counts. Find out what your personal risk adversity is, and then pick accordingly." } ]

[ { "docid": "391605", "title": "", "text": "\"Should I invest the money I don't need immediately and only withdraw it next year when I need it for living expenses or should I simply leave it in my current account? This might come as a bit of a surprise, but your money is already invested. We talk of investment vehicles. An investment vehicle is basically a place where you can put money and have it either earn a return, or be able to get it back later, or both. (The neither case is generally called \"\"spending\"\".) There are also investment classes which are things like cash, stocks, bonds, precious metals, etc.: different things that you can buy within an investment vehicle. You currently have the money in a bank account. Bank accounts currently earn very low interest rates, but they are also very liquid and very secure (in the sense of being certain that you will get the principal back). Now, when you talk about \"\"investing the money\"\", you are probably thinking of moving it from where it is currently sitting earning next to no return, to somewhere it can earn a somewhat higher return. And that's fine, but you should keep in mind that you aren't really investing it in that case, only moving it. The key to deciding about an asset allocation (how much of your money to put into what investment classes) is your investment horizon. The investment horizon is simply for how long you plan on letting the money remain where you put it. For money that you do not expect to touch for more than five years, common advice is to put it in the stock market. This is simply because in the long term, historically, the stock market has outperformed most other investment classes when looking at return versus risk (volatility). However, money that you expect to need sooner than that is often recommended against putting it in the stock market. The reason for this is that the stock market is volatile -- the value of your investment can fluctuate, and there's always the risk that it will be down when you need the money. If you don't need the money within several years, you can ride that out; but if you need the money within the next year, you might not have time to ride out the dip in the stock market! So, for money that you are going to need soon, you should be looking for less volatile investment classes. Bonds are generally less volatile than stocks, with government bonds generally being less volatile than corporate bonds. Bank accounts are even less volatile, coming in at practically zero volatility, but also have much lower expected rates of return. For the money that you need within a year, I would recommend against any volatile investment class. In other words, you might take whichever part you don't need within a year and put in bonds (except for what you don't foresee needing within the next half decade or more, which you can put in stocks), then put the remainder in a simple high-yield deposit-insured savings account. It won't earn much, but you will be basically guaranteed that the money will still be there when you want it in a year. For the money you put into bonds and stocks, find low-cost index mutual funds or exchange-traded funds to do so. You cannot predict the future rate of return of any investment, but you can predict the cost of the investment with a high degree of accuracy. Hence, for any given investment class, strive to minimize cost, as doing so is likely to lead to better return on investment over time. It's extremely rare to find higher-cost alternatives that are actually worth it in the long term.\"" }, { "docid": "567891", "title": "", "text": "Contact the bank where the money is being sent. They should have a record of it, and they will know what happened to it. In some, maybe even most, banks accounts are never truly closed, they are just made inactive. If that is the case with this bank the 300 euro may be sitting in the account as a credit. If they have the money, ask for them to send it to back by reversing the transaction. If it has been too long they may have another procedure for refunding the money. They might even send it by check. If they already reversed the transaction, contact your bank to determine where the funds went." }, { "docid": "473949", "title": "", "text": "\"Many of my friends said I should invest my money on stocks or something else, instead of put them in the bank forever. I do not know anything about finance, so my questions are: First let me say that your friends may have the best intentions, but don't trust them. It has been my experience that friends tell you what they would do if they had your money, and not what they would actually do with their money. Now, I don't mean that they would be malicious, or that they are out to get you. What I do mean, is why would you take advise from someone about what they would do with 100k when they don't have 100k. I am in your financial situation (more or less), and I have friends that make more then I do, and have no savings. Or that will tell you to get an IRA -so-and-so but don't have the means (discipline) to do so. Do not listen to your friends on matters of money. That's just good all around advise. Is my financial status OK? If not, how can I improve it? Any financial situation with no or really low debt is OK. I would say 5% of annual income in unsecured debt, or 2-3 years in annual income in secured debt is a good place to be. That is a really hard mark to hit (it seems). You have hit it. So your good, right now. You may want to \"\"plan for the future\"\". Immediate goals that I always tell people, are 6 months of income stuck in a liquid savings account, then start building a solid investment situation, and a decent retirement plan. This protects you from short term situations like loss of job, while doing something for the future. Is now a right time for me to see a financial advisor? Is it worthy? How would she/he help me? Rather it's worth it or not to use a financial adviser is going to be totally opinion based. Personally I think they are worth it. Others do not. I see it like this. Unless you want to spend all your time looking up money stuff, the adviser is going to have a better grasp of \"\"money stuff\"\" then you, because they do spend all their time doing it. That being said there is one really important thing to consider. That is going to be how you pay the adviser. The following are my observations. You will need to make up your own mind. Free Avoid like the plague. These advisers are usually provided by the bank and make their money off commission or kickbacks. That means they will advise you of the product that makes them the most money. Not you. Flat Rate These are not a bad option, but they don't have any real incentive to make you money. Usually, they do a decent job of making you money, but again, it's usually better for them to advise you on products that make them money. Per Hour These are my favorite. They charge per hour. Usually they are a small shop, and will walk you through all the advise. They advise what's best for you, because they have to sit there and explain their choices. They can be hard to find, but are generally the best option in my opinion. % of Money These are like the flat rate advisers to me. They get a percentage of the money you give them to \"\"manage\"\". Because they already have your money they are more likely to recommend products that are in their interest. That said, there not all bad. % or Profit These are the best (see notes later). They get a percentage of the money they make for you. They have the most interest in making you money. They only get part of what you get, so there going to make sure you get the biggest pie, so they can get a bigger slice. Notes In the real world, all advisers are likely to get kickbacks on products they recommend. Make sure to keep an eye for that. Also most advisers will use 2-3 of the methods listed above for billing. Something like z% of profit +$x per hour is what I like to see. You will have to look around and see what is available. Just remember that you are paying someone to make you money (or to advise you on how to make money) so long as what they take leaves you with some profit your in a better situation then your are now. And that's the real goal.\"" }, { "docid": "122182", "title": "", "text": "\"To answer length validity and security implications of draft checks issued and negotiated within the United States, I am heavily addressing the common erroneous assumptions of where the funds sit while they're \"\"in\"\" a draft check and how to get them out. Tl;Dr The existing answers are incomplete and in some ways dangerously misleading. Jerry can still be potentially defrauded by Tom, and even if the check is legitimately drawn and negotiable, Jerry may still experience delayed access to the funds. The funds sit in an account held by the issuing bank. As long as the bank has sufficient funds, the check does. However, there are significantly more factors that go into whether a check will be returned unpaid (\"\"bounce\"\"). If I hand you $5000 in cash, will you give me $5000 in cash? Probably, and you'd probably be pretty safe. How about I give you a $5000 draft check, will you give me $5000 in cash without doing anything except looking at it to verify the check? I hope not (Cash America sure wouldn't) but people sell expensive goods with the \"\"same as cash\"\" attitude. Remember: The only non-cash form of payment which cannot somehow be held, reversed or returned unpaid in the U.S. without consent of the receiving party is a payment order (a.k.a wire transfer)! The draft check is \"\"as good as cash\"\" in the sense that the money for a draft check is withdrawn from your account before the check is negotiated (deposited). This does NOT mean that a draft check will not bounce, so Jerry is NOT as secure in handing the goods to Tom as if Tom had handed him cash, as it is still a check. Jerry's bank will not receive the funds for Tom's draft check for an average 3 to 5 business days, same as a personal check. Jerry will probably have access to the first $5000 within two business days... provided that he deposits the draft check in person at his bank's branch or in a bank-owned ATM. In the United States, Regulation CC governs funds availability. Regarding official, draft, or tellers checks: \"\"If the customer desires next-day availability of funds from these checks, [your bank] may require use of a special deposit slip.\"\" Mobile deposit availability in the U.S. is NOT regulated in this way and will likely be subject to a longer hold on more, if not all, of the check! Draft checks, don't, as a habit, \"\"bounce\"\" in the colloquial sense of \"\"returned for insufficient funds.\"\" This is because they are prepaid and drawn upon a financial institution's account. Banks are insolvent far less frequently than other businesses or individuals. Draft checks, tellers checks, official checks, bank checks, etc CAN, however, be returned unpaid if one of the following is true: As an aside: an institution is not obligated to honor a stale dated check, but may do so at its discretion. If you have a personal check outstanding for over 6 months, it may still clear and potentially overdraw your account. In this case, contact your bank ASAP to process a reversal. The depositing bank mis-scans the check and the issuing bank refuses the resulting data. I have seen systems mis-read which data field is which, or its contents. Also, there is the possibility the image if the check will be illegible to the issuing bank. The draft check has been cancelled (stop paid). This can happen if: a) The check was fraudulently bought from the issuing bank using Tom's account b) Tom has completed an indemnification agreement that the check was lost or otherwise not used for its intended purpose, without fraud having occurred against Tom c) The draft check is escheated (paid to the state as unclaimed property). This case is a subset of case 1, but will lead to a different return reason stamped on the (image replacement document of) the check. The draft check was never any good in the first place. Because of the perception that draft checks are as good as cash (they're not but are a lot better than personal checks), forgery and attempted fraud is shockingly common. These aren't actually underwritten by a real bank, even if they appear to be. The only money \"\"in\"\" them is what the fraudster can get out of you. Jerry did not properly endorse the check before presenting it for deposit or otherwise negotiating it. In my time in banking, I most commonly saw cases 3 and 4. Unlike most counterfeit cash, case 3 will fool Jerry and Jerry's teller. Tom gets an immediate payout (a car, a wire transfer, a payday loan, etc) and Jerry's bank doesn't know the check isn't valid until they call the alleged issuing bank to verify its negotiability, or in the case of smaller checks into lower-risk accounts, it is simply returned unpaid as fraudulently drawn. To conclude: Call the alleged issuing bank's verification line before handing over the goods, always properly endorse your deposits, and address what happens if one does not receive or collect on prompt payment in your contracts.\"" }, { "docid": "412286", "title": "", "text": "Your statement makes it clear that you have no idea whatsoever how money circulates through the economy. Pray tell, what percentage of U.S. GDP is consumer spending? You completely failed to grasp the relevant parts of the hypothetical scenario. The takeaway was that if 1 person has the same amount of income as several thousand people, the several thousand people will spend a vastly higher percentage of that same number. The rich don't have to spend their income. The poor and masses spend most of their income. To your comment about someone making $50k and spending $45k needing to improve their financial decision making... Well yea. But that's not the reality we have in America. I don't have the exact number handy, but you do realize that there are over 100 million people in this country who are not able to save $5,000 a year, correct? I wasn't making any sort of statement on what I think the proper tax rate should be on the wealthy, I was just telling you (along with everyone else here) that the rich don't spend as much of their incomes as the rest of society. But since you asked, probably 43% on income north of $700,000." }, { "docid": "505134", "title": "", "text": "\"I am perfectly qualified to not use an accountant. I am a business professor, and my work crosses over into accounting quite a bit. I would certainly find a CPA that is reputable and hire them for advice before starting. I know a physicist who didn't do that and found they ended up with $78,000 in fines. There are a number of specific things an accountant might provide that Quickbooks will not. First and foremost, they are an outsider's set of eyes. If they are good, they will find a polite way to say \"\"you want to do what?!?!?!\"\" If they are good, they won't fall out of their chair, their jaw won't drop to the floor, and they won't giggle until they get home. A good accountant has seen around a hundred successful and unsuccessful businesses. They have seen everything you may have thought of. Intelligence is learning from your own mistakes, wisdom is learning from the mistakes of others. Accountants are the repositories of wisdom. An accountant can point out weaknesses in your plan and help you shore it up. They can provide information about the local market that you may not be aware of. They can assist you with understanding the long run consequences of the legal form that you choose. They can assist you in understanding the trade-offs of different funding models. They can also do tasks that you are not talented at and which will take a lot of time if you do it, and little time if they do it. There is a reason that accountants are required to have 160 semester hours to sit for the CPA. They also have to have a few thousand field hours before they can sit for it as well. There is one thing you may want to keep in mind though. An accountant will often do what you ask them to do, so think about what you want before you visit the accountant. Also, remember to ask the question \"\"is there a question I should have asked but didn't?\"\"\"" }, { "docid": "578896", "title": "", "text": "Greek bank deposits are backed by the Greek government and by the European Central Bank. So in order to lose money under the insurance limits of 100k euros the ECB would need to fail in which case deposit insurance would be the least of most peoples worries. On the other hand I have no idea how easy or hard it is to get to money from a failed bank in Greece. In the US FDIC insurance will usually have your money available in a couple of days. If there isn't a compelling reason to keep the money in a Greek bank I wouldn't do it." }, { "docid": "487502", "title": "", "text": "Transaction fees are part of the income for banks, and as we know they are profit making corporations just like any other Company. The differene is that instead of buying and packing and Selling groceries, they buy and package and sell Money. Within the rules and the market they will try to maximize their profit, exactly like Apple or GM or Walmart and so on. Sweden and Holland are part of the European union and the leaders of the union has defined (by law) that certain types of transactions should be done without fees. In order to transfer Money from your Swedish account to the Dutch account you do what is called a SEPA transaction, which should be done in one day without cost to you as a customer. Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Euro_Payments_Area Gunnar" }, { "docid": "115817", "title": "", "text": "All value given to products is subjective and is different from person to person. It can also vary for the same person from year to year, month to month, day to day, or even hour to hour as a person analyzes different products and prices to determine which imparts the most value to him or her at a given point in time. In regards to losing money in your investment accounts. This reminds of a book I read on Jesse Livermore. Jesse was a famous stock broker who made millions (in the 1920's so he would be a billionaire in today's money) in the stock market multiple times. Jesse felt like you - he felt like after a while the losses on paper did not seem to concern him as much as he thought it should. He thought it was due to the investment accounts being simply being numbers on papers and not cold, hard cash. So what did Jesse do to remove the abstract nature of investment accounts? From here: Livermore always sold out all his positions at the end of every year and had the cash deposited in his account at the Chase Manhattan Bank. Then he would arrange with the bank to have the money, in cash, in the bank’s vault in chests. “There was a desk, a chair, a cot and an easy chair in the middle of the cash.” On the occasion described in 1923, there was $50 million in cash. In the corner was a fridge with food, enough for a few days. There was lighting installed. Then, like Scrooge McDuck, Livermore would have himself locked in the vault with his cash. He would stay a couple of days and “review his year from every aspect.” After his stay was over, he would fill his pockets with cash and go on a shopping spree. He would also take a vacation and not re-enter the market until February. But unlike Scrooge McDuck, this was not the act of a miser, explains Smitten. Livermore lived a world of paper transactions all year long. He believed that “by the end of the year he had lost his perception of what the paper slips really represented, cash money and ultimately power.” He “needed to touch the money and feel the power of cash.” It made him re-appraise his stock and commodity positions. Imagine the $60,000 from your investment account sitting on your kitchen table. Imagine seeing $1,000 dumped into the trash can one day. I know I would appreciate the money much more seeing that happen." }, { "docid": "201294", "title": "", "text": "The experience I have with wire transfers is from Australia to the US. These transfers can take up to 5 business dates (i.e. a whole week including the non-business days of the weekend). I would have thought intra-European transfers would be quicker, given how behind most US (regional) banks are in their electronic transfers. However, I don't think you should be worried just yet." }, { "docid": "451734", "title": "", "text": "\"i hate to say it, and i will probably be downvoted to oblivion, but i don't think you can do anything. i'm not an expert, so i might be wrong, but if greece (or any euro country, for that matters) decides to exit the euro, the currency will be dead within the week. that, from what i've read in various newspapers, will be an incredibly bad news for the european economy. which *will* collapse in a very short period of time. then the collapse would propagate (more or less slowly, more or less significantly) to other economies, especially china and US, possibly middle east, too. at that point, you (well, we) have a major economic cataclysm. would it really matter if you had a tiny bit more money than your neighbour, if production stops, goods don't move that much anymore, and your country is generally in such a deep shit that the potato famine will look like a day in eurodisney? i agree with what other people are saying: they will not allow the euro to fall. \"\"they\"\" sounds like hidden conspiracies, but even if european leaders have taught us that we can expect the worse from them (2 world wars in the last centuries are just the quicker reminder of their stupidity), there's the americans, the chineses, and so on. i think the worst thing you, or anyone else in europe, can do is panicking and moving their money around. if the exchange rate with the euro is not fixed (and nothing is) you still have a chance to lose a significant amount of money in the short-medium run, in a worst case scenario. chill. relax. if you're really desperate and think that things *will* go bad, try turning a hobby into another job, especially if you can do it online and can bring you a steady income eventually. **TL; DR: if the world economy collapse, you will still lose money. live happy. chill.**\"" }, { "docid": "8601", "title": "", "text": "Setting aside for the moment the very relevant issue of whether you need the full amount quickly, I'll just tackle comparing which option gives you to maximum amount of money (in terms of real dollars). The trick is, unless you think inflation will suddenly reverse itself or stop entirely (not likely), $50K today is worth a LOT more than $50K in 20 years. If you don't believe me, consider that just 30 years ago the average price for a mid-level new car was around $3k. When you grandfather says he got a burger for a nickel, he isn't talking about 2010 dollars. So, how do you account for this? Well, the way financial people and project managers do it to estimate how much to pay today for $1 at some point in the future is through a net present value (NPV) calculation. You can find a calculator here. In your question, you gave some numbers for the payout, but not the lump sum prize amount. Going solely on what you have provided, I calculate that you should take the lump sum if it is greater than $766,189.96 which is the net present value of 20 years of $50K Payments assuming 3% annual inflation, which is fairly a fairly reasonable number given history. However, if you think the out-of-control Gov't spending is going to send inflation through the roof (possible, but not a given), then you almost certainly would want the lump sum. I suppose in that scenario you might want the lump sum anyway because if the Govt starts filching on their obligations, doing it to a small number of lottery winners might be politically more popular than cutting other programs that affect a large number of voters." }, { "docid": "81344", "title": "", "text": "\"&gt; it emerged in Parliament that the European Commission, in return for allowing the nationalisation of the Rock, had placed a limit on how long the bank could stay in state ownership. EU acts as though it's doing a favor by \"\"allowing\"\" Britain to nationalize its own bank? Shouldn't they be thrilled? Isn't the British Taxpayer the one footing the bill? And look at what a festering dung hole the eurozone has become. One can only guess what backroom deals have been hatched by wealthy investors to \"\"allow\"\" the breaking of EU rules by their counterparts in other countries.\"" }, { "docid": "138849", "title": "", "text": "I assume having real estate in a good popular city is much more secure way of keeping money than having it in a bank account Not at all! Many things can go wrong with rental property. Renters can be late on rent, they can cause damage to property, you can have unexpected repairs. I'm not saying that you should just let it sit, but rental property is not risk-free my any means. Are you prepared to be a landlord as a part time job (for 500/mo?). Rental property is not passive income - it takes work to maintain. You can outsource this to a property manager, but that eats into the 500/mo that you are estimating). I want to stay flexible and have a possibility to change my location whenever I want. That's a perfectly reasonable reason not to buy a home, but what will you do with the rental when you move? It will still need maintenance, you'll still need to interact with renters, etc. I'm not saying you shouldn't do this, but I get the feeling that you are not fully aware of the risks involved in rental properties." }, { "docid": "354553", "title": "", "text": "That is kind of the point, one of the hopes is that it incentivizes banks to stop storing money and start injecting it into the economy themselves. Compared to the European Central Bank investing directly into the economy the way the US central bank has been doing. (The Federal Reserve buying mortgage backed securities) On a country level, individual European countries have tried this before in recent times with no noticeable effect." }, { "docid": "214845", "title": "", "text": "I am a big fan of what we call inheritance tax. I think it is by far the fairest way we have of redistributing wealth. I don't believe a kid should be entitled to the parents ability to earn and that they should have to achieve that themselves. The relationship is clearly complicated between welfare and employment. I believe the US employment issues are far more to do with the overall economy and less to do with benefits. The nations that do have high welfare and good employment, such as the scandie nations, have not been as effected by the global downturn for numerous other reasons (Norway is essentially one giant oil hedge fund) and so are hard to compare. Any southern European nation can be an example of the opposite." }, { "docid": "59411", "title": "", "text": "Check with stock brokers. Some of them will offer ILS->USD conversion at a very beneficial rate (very close to the official), without any commission, and flat-priced wire transfers. For large amounts this is perfect. I know for a fact that Gaon Trade used to do that ($15 for a wire transfer of any amount), but they are now defunct... Check with Meitav (their successor) and others if they still do these things. If you're talking about relatively small amounts (up to several thousands $$$) - you may be better off withdrawing cash or using your credit card in the US. For mid range (up to $50K give or take, depending on your shopping and bargaining skills) banks may be cheaper. A quick note about what jamesqf has mentioned in his answer... You probably don't want to tell your banker that you're moving to the US. Some people reported banks freezing their accounts and demanding US tax info to unfreeze, something that you're not required to provide according to the Israeli law. So just don't tell them. In the US you'll need to report your Israeli bank/trading/pension/educational/savings/insurance accounts on FBAR and FATCA forms when you're doing your taxes." }, { "docid": "520782", "title": "", "text": "I have no problem with what ford is doing. I have a problem with the attitude in the comment &gt; Those companies that are locked into doing so by huge numbers of _legacy employees_ and retirees to whom they still have legal obligations (the automakers, some airlines, etc.) need to figure out how to dump these liabilities ASAP. Chinese, Brazilian, European and other global competitors... It seems to forget that skilled workers are what generate the profits. The company is not its own entity. The company doesn't use workers like disposable fuel where any warm body will do." }, { "docid": "410477", "title": "", "text": "&gt;% of GDP Well that's a start. Now: Why should we compare the government of 1900 to the government of today? Please be specific about how it makes sense to draw comparisons across vastly different technologies and monetary landscapes. Also, please supply a credible source. &gt;relative to other countries. ie soviet union, european nations, ... Well of course. The US had a higher per capita GDP than the soviet union or european nations. &gt;i was an econ minor at northwestern (pretty much all Keynesian teaching). Goes to a well known neo-classical 'freshwater' school, says it was 'pretty much all Keynesian'. &gt; i also read a lot of stuff by various austrian economists. Interesting. Tell me why they deny scientific method again? &gt;there's nothing wrong or untrue about that sentence rich = poor. However, everyone = poor. Doesn't make sense. I'm sure you have an argument. If so, please state it clearly so we don't have to go back eight times to figure out what you meant." } ]

[ { "docid": "76562", "title": "", "text": "Unfortunately I do not have much experience with European banks. However, I do know of ways to earn interest on bank accounts. CDs (Certificates of Deposit) are a good way to earn interest. Its basically a savings account that you cannot touch for a fixed rate of time. You can set it from an average of 6 months to 12 months. You can pull the money out early if there is an emergency as well. I would also look into different types of bank accounts. If you go with an account other than a free one, the interest rate will be higher and as long as you have the minimum amount required you should not be charged. Hope I was able to help!" } ]

[ { "docid": "391605", "title": "", "text": "\"Should I invest the money I don't need immediately and only withdraw it next year when I need it for living expenses or should I simply leave it in my current account? This might come as a bit of a surprise, but your money is already invested. We talk of investment vehicles. An investment vehicle is basically a place where you can put money and have it either earn a return, or be able to get it back later, or both. (The neither case is generally called \"\"spending\"\".) There are also investment classes which are things like cash, stocks, bonds, precious metals, etc.: different things that you can buy within an investment vehicle. You currently have the money in a bank account. Bank accounts currently earn very low interest rates, but they are also very liquid and very secure (in the sense of being certain that you will get the principal back). Now, when you talk about \"\"investing the money\"\", you are probably thinking of moving it from where it is currently sitting earning next to no return, to somewhere it can earn a somewhat higher return. And that's fine, but you should keep in mind that you aren't really investing it in that case, only moving it. The key to deciding about an asset allocation (how much of your money to put into what investment classes) is your investment horizon. The investment horizon is simply for how long you plan on letting the money remain where you put it. For money that you do not expect to touch for more than five years, common advice is to put it in the stock market. This is simply because in the long term, historically, the stock market has outperformed most other investment classes when looking at return versus risk (volatility). However, money that you expect to need sooner than that is often recommended against putting it in the stock market. The reason for this is that the stock market is volatile -- the value of your investment can fluctuate, and there's always the risk that it will be down when you need the money. If you don't need the money within several years, you can ride that out; but if you need the money within the next year, you might not have time to ride out the dip in the stock market! So, for money that you are going to need soon, you should be looking for less volatile investment classes. Bonds are generally less volatile than stocks, with government bonds generally being less volatile than corporate bonds. Bank accounts are even less volatile, coming in at practically zero volatility, but also have much lower expected rates of return. For the money that you need within a year, I would recommend against any volatile investment class. In other words, you might take whichever part you don't need within a year and put in bonds (except for what you don't foresee needing within the next half decade or more, which you can put in stocks), then put the remainder in a simple high-yield deposit-insured savings account. It won't earn much, but you will be basically guaranteed that the money will still be there when you want it in a year. For the money you put into bonds and stocks, find low-cost index mutual funds or exchange-traded funds to do so. You cannot predict the future rate of return of any investment, but you can predict the cost of the investment with a high degree of accuracy. Hence, for any given investment class, strive to minimize cost, as doing so is likely to lead to better return on investment over time. It's extremely rare to find higher-cost alternatives that are actually worth it in the long term.\"" }, { "docid": "272547", "title": "", "text": "\"Ok, I think what you're really asking is \"\"how can I benefit from a collapse in the price of gold?\"\" :-) And that's easy. (The hard part's making that kind of call with money on the line...) The ETF GLD is entirely physical gold sitting in a bank vault. In New York, I believe. You could simply sell it short. Alternatively, you could buy a put option on it. Even more risky, you could sell a (naked) call option on it. i.e. you receive the option premium up front, and if it expires worthless you keep the money. Of course, if gold goes up, you're on the hook. (Don't do this.) (the \"\"Don't do this\"\" was added by Chris W. Rea. I agree that selling naked options is best avoided, but I'm not going to tell you what to do. What I should have done was make clear that your potential losses are unlimited when selling naked calls. For example, if you sold a single GLD naked call, and gold went to shoot to $1,000,000/oz, you'd be on the hook for around $10,000,000. An unrealistic example, perhaps, but one that's worth pondering to grasp the risk you'd be exposing yourself to with selling naked calls. -- Patches) Alternative ETFs that work the same, holding physical gold, are IAU and SGOL. With those the gold is stored in London and Switzerland, respectively, if I remember right. Gold peaked around $1900 and is now back down to the $1500s. So, is the run over, and it's all downhill from here? Or is it a simple retracement, gathering strength to push past $2000? I have no idea. And I make no recommendations.\"" }, { "docid": "410477", "title": "", "text": "&gt;% of GDP Well that's a start. Now: Why should we compare the government of 1900 to the government of today? Please be specific about how it makes sense to draw comparisons across vastly different technologies and monetary landscapes. Also, please supply a credible source. &gt;relative to other countries. ie soviet union, european nations, ... Well of course. The US had a higher per capita GDP than the soviet union or european nations. &gt;i was an econ minor at northwestern (pretty much all Keynesian teaching). Goes to a well known neo-classical 'freshwater' school, says it was 'pretty much all Keynesian'. &gt; i also read a lot of stuff by various austrian economists. Interesting. Tell me why they deny scientific method again? &gt;there's nothing wrong or untrue about that sentence rich = poor. However, everyone = poor. Doesn't make sense. I'm sure you have an argument. If so, please state it clearly so we don't have to go back eight times to figure out what you meant." }, { "docid": "520782", "title": "", "text": "I have no problem with what ford is doing. I have a problem with the attitude in the comment &gt; Those companies that are locked into doing so by huge numbers of _legacy employees_ and retirees to whom they still have legal obligations (the automakers, some airlines, etc.) need to figure out how to dump these liabilities ASAP. Chinese, Brazilian, European and other global competitors... It seems to forget that skilled workers are what generate the profits. The company is not its own entity. The company doesn't use workers like disposable fuel where any warm body will do." }, { "docid": "451734", "title": "", "text": "\"i hate to say it, and i will probably be downvoted to oblivion, but i don't think you can do anything. i'm not an expert, so i might be wrong, but if greece (or any euro country, for that matters) decides to exit the euro, the currency will be dead within the week. that, from what i've read in various newspapers, will be an incredibly bad news for the european economy. which *will* collapse in a very short period of time. then the collapse would propagate (more or less slowly, more or less significantly) to other economies, especially china and US, possibly middle east, too. at that point, you (well, we) have a major economic cataclysm. would it really matter if you had a tiny bit more money than your neighbour, if production stops, goods don't move that much anymore, and your country is generally in such a deep shit that the potato famine will look like a day in eurodisney? i agree with what other people are saying: they will not allow the euro to fall. \"\"they\"\" sounds like hidden conspiracies, but even if european leaders have taught us that we can expect the worse from them (2 world wars in the last centuries are just the quicker reminder of their stupidity), there's the americans, the chineses, and so on. i think the worst thing you, or anyone else in europe, can do is panicking and moving their money around. if the exchange rate with the euro is not fixed (and nothing is) you still have a chance to lose a significant amount of money in the short-medium run, in a worst case scenario. chill. relax. if you're really desperate and think that things *will* go bad, try turning a hobby into another job, especially if you can do it online and can bring you a steady income eventually. **TL; DR: if the world economy collapse, you will still lose money. live happy. chill.**\"" }, { "docid": "492656", "title": "", "text": "\"If you can afford it, I would give her the money. It is likely that she will not pay you back and then you would lose a friend. This friend cannot afford the car. If you want to be a really good friend, offer different options like buying a junker until she can save up for a nicer car. Based on your comment, I am gathering the following: Sorry to beat a dead horse, but lending the money is akin to giving her the money. So if you don't want to give it to her, then you can't lend it to her. She has \"\"car fever\"\", she thinks she cannot live her life without this car. She can, and you know it. In a week or two, she will have forgotten all about it. Since you cannot really say no (for whatever reason) you can \"\"pocket veto\"\" the idea through distraction. Make her do a lot more legwork and in the end she will probably forget about it. So what I might suggest to her is that she goes to a credit union or a local bank to try for a car loan and see what they say. You might sweeten the deal by saying they typically have lower interest rates then the place that is offering the loan now. Alternatively you should tell her to let the car deal sit for a couple of weeks to see if you can talk them down on price. The key is stalling, so the next shinny thing distracts her. Now the dad in me is going to come out, please consider yourself yelled at for these items: Have a nice day.\"" }, { "docid": "499977", "title": "", "text": "\"I am not saying it is fair, or that only they get to say \"\"this sucks\"\" I am saying that you should not be envious of them. Also, try to remember that the programs like the one they made use of don't just help that family. Foreclosures drive down property values. Sure it sucks to see them basically get rewarded for an. . . . optimistic gamble shall we say. . . but they are not the only ones that benefited. Their neighbors, some of whom likely are honest people who took a cautious path to home ownership, now will not have their homes decrease in value due to sister. She gets an unfair reward, but it also helps avoid her neighbors getting unfairly dinged. Not to mention that it is safer to have homes occupied, and they tend to be less likely to fall into disrepair. Also, try to remember that every house that does go back to the bank means one more family of renters. Banks tend to sit on homes, often for way way longer than they should, leaving that house empty, while the former tenants try to rent. Pour more renters into the pool while banks sit on unsold vacant homes and landlords can be more picky and charge more for rent. But in the end. . . .man your rent sucks.\"" }, { "docid": "299928", "title": "", "text": "I checked my account right before lunch because i was still thinking about what i wanted to do for my B-day. I had just got paid and my account was $30 and change. I had also just written my rent check as well. Some ass hat used my card and withdrew $300 at like 5 different atms(i'm assuming because they had different POS ID numbers) within like 5min. i didn't even know you could withdraw that much cash at once. Needless to say i looked like a bum infront of my landlord who gave me the sure that's why your check bounced look and 1 shitty birthday sitting at home eating top ramen. And since it was cash i had to wait almost 2 weeks (seems like months when you have no cash and a dwindling supply of instant and canned foods) for the bank to replace my cash. Yeah worst b-day ever. edit. oh and no i had no idea when they did it or how or where but the guy on the phone at the bank basically told me that it's happening a lot lately and asked my permission to file charges which i of course said yes to." }, { "docid": "138849", "title": "", "text": "I assume having real estate in a good popular city is much more secure way of keeping money than having it in a bank account Not at all! Many things can go wrong with rental property. Renters can be late on rent, they can cause damage to property, you can have unexpected repairs. I'm not saying that you should just let it sit, but rental property is not risk-free my any means. Are you prepared to be a landlord as a part time job (for 500/mo?). Rental property is not passive income - it takes work to maintain. You can outsource this to a property manager, but that eats into the 500/mo that you are estimating). I want to stay flexible and have a possibility to change my location whenever I want. That's a perfectly reasonable reason not to buy a home, but what will you do with the rental when you move? It will still need maintenance, you'll still need to interact with renters, etc. I'm not saying you shouldn't do this, but I get the feeling that you are not fully aware of the risks involved in rental properties." }, { "docid": "27484", "title": "", "text": "\"Two things you should consider about paying off student loans ahead of the 10 year amortization schedule: What interest rate are you paying on your loans? What are you earning on your investments in a balanced mutual fund? When you pay off your student loans you are essentially guaranteed a return of the interest rate on your loan (future interest you would have had to pay). However if you are investing well and getting a good return on your investments you will get a greater return. Ex. Half of my student loans are at 6.8%, thr other half are at 2.5%. I make the minimum payments on the loans at 2.5% and invest my money in tax sheltered retirement accounts. The return on these funds has been 8% and that is on per-tax dollars so really closer to 11%. Now there is also downside risk when you invest in the market, but 2.5% guaranteed I will forgoe for 11% in low risk return. However my loans at 6.8% I repay in excess of the minimums because 6.8% guaranteed return is pretty good! So this decision is based on your confidence in your investments and your own risk tolerance. Once you pay your bank on your student loans that money is gone, out of your control. If you need it in the future you may need to pay higher interest on an unsecured loan, or you may not be able to borrow it. When you want to make large purchases (a car, house) that money you per-paid on your loans isn't available to you as a down payment. Banks should want you to have some of your own \"\"skin in the game\"\" on these purchases and the lending standards keep getting tougher. You are better off if you have money saved in your name rather than against the balance on your loan. Yes you can't bankrupt these loans, but the money you repay on them doesn't go toward housing you or paying your bills on a rainy day. I went through the same feeling when I completed my MBA with $50k in debt, you want to pay it off as soon as possible. But you need to step away and realize that it was an investment in your future and your future is long, you need time to make a financial foundation for it. And you will feel a lot more empowered when you have money saved and you can make the decision for how you want to deploy it to work for you. (Ex. I could pay down my student loans with the balance I have in the bank, but I am going to use it to invest in myself and open my own business).\"" }, { "docid": "125568", "title": "", "text": "\"No, there are neither advantages nor disadvantages. I'll take on this question from an accounting standpoint. Financial statements, the tools at which the market determines (amongst other things) the value of a stock, are converted at year end to the home currency (see 1.1.3).If Company A has revenue of 100,000 USD and the conversion to EUR is .89, revenue in the European market will be reported as 89,000 EUR. These valuations, along with ratios, analysis, and \"\"expert\"\" opinions determine if a person should own shares in Company A. Now, if we're talking about comparing markets this is a entirely different question. Example: Should I buy stock of Company A, who is in the American market (as an European)? Should I buy stock of Company B, who is in the European market (as an American)? I would recommend this as additional level of diversification of your portfolio to inlcude possible large inflation of either the currency. The possible gains of this foreign exchange may be greater if one or the other currency becomes weak.\"" }, { "docid": "92462", "title": "", "text": "Are there banks where you can open a bank account without being a citizen of that country without having to visit the bank in person? I've done it the other way around, opened a bank account in the UK so I have a way to store GBP. Given that Britain is still in the EU you can basically open an account anywhere. German online banks for instance allow you to administrate anything online, should there be cards issued you would need an address in the country. And for opening an account a passport is sufficient, you can identify yourself in a video chat. Now what's the downside? French banks' online services are in French, German banks' services are in German. If that doesn't put you off, I would name such banks in the comments if asked. Are there any online services for investing money that aren't tied to any particular country? Can you clarify that? You should at least be able to buy into any European or American stock through your broker. That should give you an ease of mind being FCA-regulated. However, those are usually GDRs (global depository receipts) and denominated in GBp (pence) so you'd be visually exposed to currency rates, by which I mean that if the stock goes up 1% but the GBP goes up 1% in the same period then your GDR would show a 0% profit on that day; also, and more annoyingly, dividends are distributed in the foreign currency, then exchanged by the issuer of the GDR on that day and booked into your account, so if you want to be in full control of the cashflows you should get a trading account denominated in the currency (and maybe situated in the country) you're planning to invest in. If you're really serious about it, some brokers/banks offer multi-currency trading accounts (again I will name them if asked) where you can trade a wide range of instruments natively (i.e. on the primary exchanges) and you get to manage everything in one interface. Those accounts typically include access to the foreign exchange markets so you can move cash between your accounts freely (well for a surcharge). Also, typically each subaccount is issued its own IBAN." }, { "docid": "570169", "title": "", "text": "Yes, but the fact is they probably don't have the cash to pay them right now. I know they just did a cash raise by offering existing shareholders rights to purchase more shares and then additionally issuing new shares. this is always a sign of a weak cash positions, although I'm not quite sure where their cash position is post-rights offering. One of the other issues was the US DOJ fined DB wayyyy more than they should have relative to what they fined US banks for the MBS crisis. Basically US Banks were fined fairly, but DB wasn't because they are foreign and the DOJ likes using foreign companies as piggy-banks...obviously this comes back to hurt the US as now Europeans are more than happy to fine US tech companies up the yin-yang. An eye for an eye..." }, { "docid": "516578", "title": "", "text": "By paying off 50K in debts now, you'll have 50K less to invest in your new house. That means that you'll have a mortgage that's 50K higher. So, it's trading one debt for another. This means you should be comparing the T&Cs for the two. The most obvious is the interest rate. That's slightly tricky for your future mortgage, as 20% money down may affect the mortgage interest rate. The easiest way is to calculate the raw $ interests you'd pay in both cases. Besides interest, there are more conditions. Some debts may include life insurance, which has a definite value in your case. It would be hard to compare those here, you'd have to do so yourself" }, { "docid": "409806", "title": "", "text": "If we spend 50k on an education that is unused it goes to waste unless the person is doing something that is as productive which sometimes they do but you also have a lot of retail degree holders that would have had a better chance with a less redundant education. College is not needed for a good understanding of civics, this was and should be once again taught in high school and expected of students graduating from a primary education. Just like basic life skills and many other topics that were dropped from schools across the nation. There should not be a price tag on an understanding of civics, we might as well add a poll tax if that is what you are suggesting." }, { "docid": "166885", "title": "", "text": "You have no idea where interest rates will go. A year or two ago people thought 3% was absurdly low, why buy them? And then interest rates dropped even further, so the people who bought then got more interest AND the present value went up since then. If you'd done nothing you would have lost money. Now, rates are REALLY absurdly low. What do? Well, they could drop even more! It's possible. We could also have 20 years of flatline - see Japan. Sitting on your hands loses money. What else should you do? Put your money in risky equities? A lot of people these days are buying dividend paying stocks now. It's extremely foolhardy to treat stocks as fixed income because they are very far from it. Overextending yourself and taking on too equity risk, IMO, is FAR more risky than accepting low interest rates+interest rate risk. Finally: I don't exactly use bonds to make money, I use it as a safe haven while I wait for stocks to do something. Stocks go up, I sell some and buy bonds. Bonds go up I sell them and buy more stock. It's nice to get a little interest on the side but not critical. I could use cash (or 1month tbills) but I'm comfortable with the amount of risk-return that 5-10year bonds provide." }, { "docid": "547773", "title": "", "text": "\"Generally cashiers checks do not expire, since they are \"\"like cash\"\" and fully funded at the time of issue. However, whether they can be cashed after a long period of time (and also what the definition of \"\"long\"\" is) depends on the bank. Eventually, if left uncashed it probably would be escheated to the state to wait for someone to claim it. Being that it's been less than a year I expect it could be cashed by the payee written on the check without any issues. If the payee is deceased then the check can be cashed by the estate, as it should be considered the property of the estate the same way it would be if it had already been cashed and was now sitting in a bank account in your mother's name. Under normal circumstances the \"\"estate\"\" in this case would go to your mother's spouse first, then to you (and your siblings if you have any), unless there is a will specifying otherwise. The only way your aunt would be able to deposit the check on her own is if she was listed as an \"\"OR\"\" on the check, or if she is the executor of OP's mother's estate. It sounds like the second line of the check is indeed referring to your aunt, however, from your description of the check it sounds like the second line is simply a designation of what the check is for rather than an additional payee. I bet a probate attorney in your state could easily tell by simply looking at the check.\"" }, { "docid": "407505", "title": "", "text": "\"This answer will expand a bit on the theory. :) A company, as an entity, represents a pile of value. Some of that is business value (the revenue stream from their products) and some of that is assets (real estate, manufacturing equipment, a patent portfolio, etc). One of those assets is cash. If you own a share in the company, you own a share of all those assets, including the cash. In a theoretical sense, it doesn't really matter whether the company holds the cash instead of you. If the company adds an extra $1 billion to its assets, then people who buy and sell the company will think \"\"hey, there's an extra $1 billion of cash in that company; I should be willing to pay $1 billion / shares outstanding more per share to own it than I would otherwise.\"\" Granted, you may ultimately want to turn your ownership into cash, but you can do that by selling your shares to someone else. From a practical standpoint, though, the company doesn't benefit from holding that cash for a long time. Cash doesn't do much except sit in bank accounts and earn pathetically small amounts of interest, and if you wanted pathetic amounts of interests from your cash you wouldn't be owning shares in a company, you'd have it in a bank account yourself. Really, the company should do something with their cash. Usually that means investing it in their own business, to grow and expand that business, or to enhance profitability. Sometimes they may also purchase other companies, if they think they can turn a profit from the purchase. Sometimes there aren't a lot of good options for what to do with that money. In that case, the company should say, \"\"I can't effectively use this money in a way which will grow my business. You should go and invest it yourself, in whatever sort of business you think makes sense.\"\" That's when they pay a dividend. You'll see that a lot of the really big global companies are the ones paying dividends - places like Coca-Cola or Exxon-Mobil or what-have-you. They just can't put all their cash to good use, even after their growth plans. Many people who get dividends will invest them in the stock market again - possibly purchasing shares of the same company from someone else, or possibly purchasing shares of another company. It doesn't usually make a lot of sense for the company to invest in the stock market themselves, though. Investment expertise isn't really something most companies are known for, and because a company has multiple owners they may have differing investment needs and risk tolerance. For instance, if I had a bunch of money from the stock market I'd put it in some sort of growth stock because I'm twenty-something with a lot of savings and years to go before retirement. If I were close to retirement, though, I would want it in a more stable stock, or even in bonds. If I were retired I might even spend it directly. So the company should let all its owners choose, unless they have a good business reason not to. Sometimes companies will do share buy-backs instead of dividends, which pays money to people selling the company stock. The remaining owners benefit by reducing the number of shares outstanding, so they own more of what's left. They should only do this if they think the stock is at a fair price, or below a fair price, for the company: otherwise the remaining owners are essentially giving away cash. (This actually happens distressingly often.) On the other hand, if the company's stock is depressed but it subsequently does better than the rest of the market, then it is a very good investment. The one nice thing about share buy-backs in general is that they don't have any immediate tax implications for the company's owners: they simply own a stock which is now more valuable, and can sell it (and pay taxes on that sale) whenever they choose.\"" }, { "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": "40051", "title": "", "text": "You can do many things: Risk free: Risk of losing:" } ]

[ { "docid": "492656", "title": "", "text": "\"If you can afford it, I would give her the money. It is likely that she will not pay you back and then you would lose a friend. This friend cannot afford the car. If you want to be a really good friend, offer different options like buying a junker until she can save up for a nicer car. Based on your comment, I am gathering the following: Sorry to beat a dead horse, but lending the money is akin to giving her the money. So if you don't want to give it to her, then you can't lend it to her. She has \"\"car fever\"\", she thinks she cannot live her life without this car. She can, and you know it. In a week or two, she will have forgotten all about it. Since you cannot really say no (for whatever reason) you can \"\"pocket veto\"\" the idea through distraction. Make her do a lot more legwork and in the end she will probably forget about it. So what I might suggest to her is that she goes to a credit union or a local bank to try for a car loan and see what they say. You might sweeten the deal by saying they typically have lower interest rates then the place that is offering the loan now. Alternatively you should tell her to let the car deal sit for a couple of weeks to see if you can talk them down on price. The key is stalling, so the next shinny thing distracts her. Now the dad in me is going to come out, please consider yourself yelled at for these items: Have a nice day.\"" }, { "docid": "72578", "title": "", "text": "\"You are in your mid 30's and have 250,000 to put aside for investments- that is a fantastic position to be in. First, let's evaluate all the options you listed. Option 1 I could buy two studio apartments in the center of a European capital city and rent out one apartment on short-term rental and live in the other. Occasionally I could Airbnb the apartment I live in to allow me to travel more (one of my life goals). To say \"\"European capital city\"\" is such a massive generalization, I would disregard this point based on that alone. Athens is a European capital city and so is Berlin but they have very different economies at this point. Let's put that aside for now. You have to beware of the following costs when using property as an investment (this list is non-exhaustive): The positive: you have someone paying the mortgage or allowing you to recoup what you paid for the apartment. But can you guarantee an ROI of 10-15% ? Far from it. If investing in real estate yielded guaranteed results, everyone would do it. This is where we go back to my initial point about \"\"European capital city\"\" being a massive generalization. Option 2 Take a loan at very low interest rate (probably 2-2.5% fixed for 15 years) and buy something a little nicer and bigger. This would be incase I decide to have a family in say, 5 years time. I would need to service the loan at up to EUR 800 / USD 1100 per month. If your life plan is taking you down the path of having a family and needed the larger space for your family, then you need the space to live in and you shouldn't be looking at it as an investment that will give you at least 10% returns. Buying property you intend to live in is as much a life choice as it is an investment. You will treat the property much different from the way something you rent out gets treated. It means you'll be in a better position when you decide to sell but don't go in to this because you think a return is guaranteed. Do it if you think it is what you need to achieve your life goals. Option 3 Buy bonds and shares. But I haven't the faintest idea about how to do that and/or manage a portfolio. If I was to go down that route how do I proceed with some confidence I won't lose all the money? Let's say you are 35 years old. The general rule is that 100 minus your age is what you should put in to equities and the rest in something more conservative. Consider this: This strategy is long term and the finer details are beyond the scope of an answer like this. You have quite some money to invest so you would get preferential treatment at many financial institutions. I want to address your point of having a goal of 10-15% return. Since you mentioned Europe, take a look at this chart for FTSE 100 (one of the more prominent indexes in Europe). You can do the math- the return is no where close to your goals. My objective in mentioning this: your goals might warrant going to much riskier markets (emerging markets). Again, it is beyond the scope of this answer.\"" }, { "docid": "520782", "title": "", "text": "I have no problem with what ford is doing. I have a problem with the attitude in the comment &gt; Those companies that are locked into doing so by huge numbers of _legacy employees_ and retirees to whom they still have legal obligations (the automakers, some airlines, etc.) need to figure out how to dump these liabilities ASAP. Chinese, Brazilian, European and other global competitors... It seems to forget that skilled workers are what generate the profits. The company is not its own entity. The company doesn't use workers like disposable fuel where any warm body will do." }, { "docid": "412286", "title": "", "text": "Your statement makes it clear that you have no idea whatsoever how money circulates through the economy. Pray tell, what percentage of U.S. GDP is consumer spending? You completely failed to grasp the relevant parts of the hypothetical scenario. The takeaway was that if 1 person has the same amount of income as several thousand people, the several thousand people will spend a vastly higher percentage of that same number. The rich don't have to spend their income. The poor and masses spend most of their income. To your comment about someone making $50k and spending $45k needing to improve their financial decision making... Well yea. But that's not the reality we have in America. I don't have the exact number handy, but you do realize that there are over 100 million people in this country who are not able to save $5,000 a year, correct? I wasn't making any sort of statement on what I think the proper tax rate should be on the wealthy, I was just telling you (along with everyone else here) that the rich don't spend as much of their incomes as the rest of society. But since you asked, probably 43% on income north of $700,000." }, { "docid": "578906", "title": "", "text": "I would tell the former owner that you will sell him the house for you current loan balance. He wants the home, he may be willing to pay what you owe. You can't really do a short sale unless you are behind on your payments. Banks only agree to a short sale when they think they are going to have to foreclose on the property. Not to mention a short sale is almost as bad as a foreclosure and will wreck your credit. If the former buying is not willing to buy the house for what you owe your only real option is to come up with the difference. If he offers you say $50K less than you owe, you will have to give the mortgage holder the remaining balance $50K in this example for them to release the property. Another problem you will face, if the former owner is willing to pay more than what the house is worth, and he is going to finance it, he will have to have enough cash to put down so that the loan amount is not more than the property is worth. Finally if none of that works you can just hold on to the property until the value comes up or you mortgage is payed down enough to make the balance of the mortgage less than the value of the house. Then offer the property to the former owner again." }, { "docid": "166885", "title": "", "text": "You have no idea where interest rates will go. A year or two ago people thought 3% was absurdly low, why buy them? And then interest rates dropped even further, so the people who bought then got more interest AND the present value went up since then. If you'd done nothing you would have lost money. Now, rates are REALLY absurdly low. What do? Well, they could drop even more! It's possible. We could also have 20 years of flatline - see Japan. Sitting on your hands loses money. What else should you do? Put your money in risky equities? A lot of people these days are buying dividend paying stocks now. It's extremely foolhardy to treat stocks as fixed income because they are very far from it. Overextending yourself and taking on too equity risk, IMO, is FAR more risky than accepting low interest rates+interest rate risk. Finally: I don't exactly use bonds to make money, I use it as a safe haven while I wait for stocks to do something. Stocks go up, I sell some and buy bonds. Bonds go up I sell them and buy more stock. It's nice to get a little interest on the side but not critical. I could use cash (or 1month tbills) but I'm comfortable with the amount of risk-return that 5-10year bonds provide." }, { "docid": "497075", "title": "", "text": "I'm of the belief that you should always put 20% down. The lower interest rate will save you thousands over the life of the loan. Also PMI is no different then burning that much cash in the fireplace every month. From Wikipedia Lenders Mortgage Insurance (LMI), also known as Private mortgage insurance (PMI) in the US, is insurance payable to a lender or trustee for a pool of securities that may be required when taking out a mortgage loan. It is insurance to offset losses in the case where a mortgagor is not able to repay the loan and the lender is not able to recover its costs after foreclosure and sale of the mortgaged property. You are basically paying money each month for the bank to be insured against you not paying your mortgage. But in actuality the asset of the condo should be that insurance. Only you can decide if you are comfortable with having $50k in liquidity or not. It sounds like a good cushion to me but I don't know the rest of your expenses." }, { "docid": "14781", "title": "", "text": "\"Yes, you're still exposed to currency risk when you purchase the stock on company B's exchange. I'm assuming you're buying the shares on B's stock exchange through an ADR, GDR, or similar instrument. The risk occurs as a result of the process through which the ADR is created. In its simplest form, the process works like this: I'll illustrate this with an example. I've separated the conversion rate into the exchange rate and a generic \"\"ADR conversion rate\"\" which includes all other factors the bank takes into account when deciding how many ADR shares to sell. The fact that the units line up is a nice check to make sure the calculation is logically correct. My example starts with these assumptions: I made up the generic ADR conversion rate; it will remain constant throughout this example. This is the simplified version of the calculation of the ADR share price from the European share price: Let's assume that the euro appreciates against the US dollar, and is now worth 1.4 USD (this is a major appreciation, but it makes a good example): The currency appreciation alone raised the share price of the ADR, even though the price of the share on the European exchange was unchanged. Now let's look at what happens if the euro appreciates further to 1.5 USD/EUR, but the company's share price on the European exchange falls: Even though the euro appreciated, the decline in the share price on the European exchange offset the currency risk in this case, leaving the ADR's share price on the US exchange unchanged. Finally, what happens if the euro experiences a major depreciation and the company's share price decreases significantly in the European market? This is a realistic situation that has occurred several times during the European sovereign debt crisis. Assuming this occurred immediately after the first example, European shareholders in the company experienced a (43.50 - 50) / 50 = -13% return, but American holders of the ADR experienced a (15.95 - 21.5093) / 21.5093 = -25.9% return. The currency shock was the primary cause of this magnified loss. Another point to keep in mind is that the foreign company itself may be exposed to currency risk if it conducts a lot of business in market with different currencies. Ideally the company has hedged against this, but if you invest in a foreign company through an ADR (or a GDR or another similar instrument), you may take on whatever risk the company hasn't hedged in addition to the currency risk that's present in the ADR/GDR conversion process. Here are a few articles that discuss currency risk specifically in the context of ADR's: (1), (2). Nestle, a Swiss company that is traded on US exchanges through an ADR, even addresses this issue in their FAQ for investors. There are other risks associated with instruments like ADR's and cross-listed companies, but normally arbitrageurs will remove these discontinuities quickly. Especially for cross-listed companies, this should keep the prices of highly liquid securities relatively synchronized.\"" }, { "docid": "92462", "title": "", "text": "Are there banks where you can open a bank account without being a citizen of that country without having to visit the bank in person? I've done it the other way around, opened a bank account in the UK so I have a way to store GBP. Given that Britain is still in the EU you can basically open an account anywhere. German online banks for instance allow you to administrate anything online, should there be cards issued you would need an address in the country. And for opening an account a passport is sufficient, you can identify yourself in a video chat. Now what's the downside? French banks' online services are in French, German banks' services are in German. If that doesn't put you off, I would name such banks in the comments if asked. Are there any online services for investing money that aren't tied to any particular country? Can you clarify that? You should at least be able to buy into any European or American stock through your broker. That should give you an ease of mind being FCA-regulated. However, those are usually GDRs (global depository receipts) and denominated in GBp (pence) so you'd be visually exposed to currency rates, by which I mean that if the stock goes up 1% but the GBP goes up 1% in the same period then your GDR would show a 0% profit on that day; also, and more annoyingly, dividends are distributed in the foreign currency, then exchanged by the issuer of the GDR on that day and booked into your account, so if you want to be in full control of the cashflows you should get a trading account denominated in the currency (and maybe situated in the country) you're planning to invest in. If you're really serious about it, some brokers/banks offer multi-currency trading accounts (again I will name them if asked) where you can trade a wide range of instruments natively (i.e. on the primary exchanges) and you get to manage everything in one interface. Those accounts typically include access to the foreign exchange markets so you can move cash between your accounts freely (well for a surcharge). Also, typically each subaccount is issued its own IBAN." }, { "docid": "248697", "title": "", "text": "Maybe there's more to this story, because as written, your sister seems, well, a little irrational. Is it possible that the bank will try to cheat you and demand that you pay a loan again that you've already paid off? Or maybe not deliberately cheat you, but make a mistake and lose track of the fact that you paid? Sure, it's POSSIBLE. But if you're going to agonize about that, what about all the other possible ways that someone could cheat you? What if you go to a store, hand over your cash for the purchase, and then the clerk insists that you never gave him any cash? What if you buy a car and it turns out to be stolen? What if you buy insurance and when you have a claim the insurance company refuses to pay? What if someone you've never met or even heard of before suddenly claims that you are the father of her baby and demands child support? Etc etc. Realistically, banks are fanatical about record-keeping. Their business is pretty much all about record-keeping. Mistakes like this are very rare. And a big business like a bank is unlikely to blatantly cheat you. They can and do make millions of dollars legally. Why should they break the law and risk paying huge fines and going to prison for a few hundred dollars? They may give you a lousy deal, like charge you outrageous overdraft fees and pay piddling interest on your deposit, but they're not going to lie about how much you owe. They just don't. I suggest that you not live your life in fear of all the might-be's. Take reasonable steps to protect yourself and get on with it. Read contracts before you sign, even if the other person gets impatient while you sit there reading. ESPECIALLY if the other person insists that you sign without reading. When you pay off a loan, you should get a piece of paper from the bank saying the loan has been paid. Stuff this piece of paper in a filing cabinet and keep it for years and years. Get a copy of your credit report periodically and make sure that there are no errors on it, like incorrect loan balances. I check mine once every year or two. Some people advise checking it every couple of months. It all depends how nervous you are and how much time you want to spend on it. Then get on with your life. Has your sister had some bad experience with loans in the past? Or has she never borrowed money and she's just confused about how it works? That's why I wonder if there's more to the story, if there's some basis for her fears." }, { "docid": "487502", "title": "", "text": "Transaction fees are part of the income for banks, and as we know they are profit making corporations just like any other Company. The differene is that instead of buying and packing and Selling groceries, they buy and package and sell Money. Within the rules and the market they will try to maximize their profit, exactly like Apple or GM or Walmart and so on. Sweden and Holland are part of the European union and the leaders of the union has defined (by law) that certain types of transactions should be done without fees. In order to transfer Money from your Swedish account to the Dutch account you do what is called a SEPA transaction, which should be done in one day without cost to you as a customer. Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Euro_Payments_Area Gunnar" }, { "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": "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": "473949", "title": "", "text": "\"Many of my friends said I should invest my money on stocks or something else, instead of put them in the bank forever. I do not know anything about finance, so my questions are: First let me say that your friends may have the best intentions, but don't trust them. It has been my experience that friends tell you what they would do if they had your money, and not what they would actually do with their money. Now, I don't mean that they would be malicious, or that they are out to get you. What I do mean, is why would you take advise from someone about what they would do with 100k when they don't have 100k. I am in your financial situation (more or less), and I have friends that make more then I do, and have no savings. Or that will tell you to get an IRA -so-and-so but don't have the means (discipline) to do so. Do not listen to your friends on matters of money. That's just good all around advise. Is my financial status OK? If not, how can I improve it? Any financial situation with no or really low debt is OK. I would say 5% of annual income in unsecured debt, or 2-3 years in annual income in secured debt is a good place to be. That is a really hard mark to hit (it seems). You have hit it. So your good, right now. You may want to \"\"plan for the future\"\". Immediate goals that I always tell people, are 6 months of income stuck in a liquid savings account, then start building a solid investment situation, and a decent retirement plan. This protects you from short term situations like loss of job, while doing something for the future. Is now a right time for me to see a financial advisor? Is it worthy? How would she/he help me? Rather it's worth it or not to use a financial adviser is going to be totally opinion based. Personally I think they are worth it. Others do not. I see it like this. Unless you want to spend all your time looking up money stuff, the adviser is going to have a better grasp of \"\"money stuff\"\" then you, because they do spend all their time doing it. That being said there is one really important thing to consider. That is going to be how you pay the adviser. The following are my observations. You will need to make up your own mind. Free Avoid like the plague. These advisers are usually provided by the bank and make their money off commission or kickbacks. That means they will advise you of the product that makes them the most money. Not you. Flat Rate These are not a bad option, but they don't have any real incentive to make you money. Usually, they do a decent job of making you money, but again, it's usually better for them to advise you on products that make them money. Per Hour These are my favorite. They charge per hour. Usually they are a small shop, and will walk you through all the advise. They advise what's best for you, because they have to sit there and explain their choices. They can be hard to find, but are generally the best option in my opinion. % of Money These are like the flat rate advisers to me. They get a percentage of the money you give them to \"\"manage\"\". Because they already have your money they are more likely to recommend products that are in their interest. That said, there not all bad. % or Profit These are the best (see notes later). They get a percentage of the money they make for you. They have the most interest in making you money. They only get part of what you get, so there going to make sure you get the biggest pie, so they can get a bigger slice. Notes In the real world, all advisers are likely to get kickbacks on products they recommend. Make sure to keep an eye for that. Also most advisers will use 2-3 of the methods listed above for billing. Something like z% of profit +$x per hour is what I like to see. You will have to look around and see what is available. Just remember that you are paying someone to make you money (or to advise you on how to make money) so long as what they take leaves you with some profit your in a better situation then your are now. And that's the real goal.\"" }, { "docid": "173479", "title": "", "text": "\"Yes, I'm a big picture guy. Like when the central banks opened unlimited short term lines recently the first thing I thought was \"\"now hedge funds can short the euro with impunity!\"\" So, short bets on the euro became a no brainer even as the market was perversely celebrating the announcement with a euro rally. Almost as if they have no idea how the bigger picture works. As if all liquidity is created equally. All it meant to me was that European banks would not have to call in the lines of credit they extend to hedge funds for THREE YEARS. That is enough time to crash the euro, hold a funeral and dance on the grave. It is just musical chairs over there. All the banks know the EU is coming for them an they all want to be in the right capital position to survive the banhammer. They'll sell out the euro to get there. I think I'm a bit too jaded for Graham style fundamental analysis. Then again I do use strong companies as my preferred trading vehicles. So, maybe I do a hybrid.\"" }, { "docid": "495339", "title": "", "text": "\"not trying to be insulting, but i would contend your response should be the one dissected in econ 101. why? because yours is the theory du jour among business interests and economic commentators in the media. the fact is that this brand of \"\"free market\"\" capitalism rests on a series of impractical assumptions. first is that investors are perfectly rationale allocators of capital. from this, that excess capital is invested - at all, let alone in a productive fashion. next, that taxation (presumably what is considered \"\"high\"\") has caused unproductive investing practices, when in fact the inverse is true - decreases in effective income tax rates (personal and corporate) combined with the reduction of passive taxes (like the estate tax) have resulted in the incentive for investors to sit on their capital and do nothing to return it to the system. finally, and perhaps most egregiously, that investing profits back into expansion and worker compensation is misallocation of resources. the entire article serves to demonstrate that this line of thinking is a self defeating concept. giving precedence to the relatively elite investor class ensures that capital is allocated according to their whims, and often times that simply means into their bank accounts. this starves the system. so i don't expect to change your mind, but i would like others to know that what you are saying is widely debunked, chicago school nonsense that gets a lot of air time from self serving interests across popular media. a few hours of unbiased research will make this evident. it is somewhat ironic that the theory has limited standing academically, as it works only in an academic/theoretical setting.\"" }, { "docid": "115408", "title": "", "text": "You are very young, you make a huge amount of money, and you have (from what information you provide) very little debt. If you simply want to buy a house for whatever reason, sure, but be honest with yourself about why you want to buy it. I see a lot of people who think they're doing it for smart financial reasons, but then when I ask them about their pension savings and credit card debts and so on, there is no evidence that they are actually the kind of person who makes decisions for smart financial reasons. If you want a house because that seems like the thing that people do, maybe you could think more about what you actually want. If your concern is putting your money to work for you (you seem to dislike that you pay rent each month and after that month you don't have anything to show for your money, except of course that you didn't spent the last month living on the streets), you can do a lot better than getting a mortgage. For example, living frugally you should be able to dump 50k a year into investments; if you did that for a few years, you could reasonably expect the return to cover your rent and bills in a surprisingly small number of years (a lot less than a 25 year mortgage). Your question seems to be starting from the position that you should buy a house. You're asking if you should buy it now, or wait. You are rich enough now (and if your earnings keep going up, will be even more rich in a few years) that you should perhaps question your need to buy a house. With your kind of money, at this stage of your life, you can do a lot better." }, { "docid": "567891", "title": "", "text": "Contact the bank where the money is being sent. They should have a record of it, and they will know what happened to it. In some, maybe even most, banks accounts are never truly closed, they are just made inactive. If that is the case with this bank the 300 euro may be sitting in the account as a credit. If they have the money, ask for them to send it to back by reversing the transaction. If it has been too long they may have another procedure for refunding the money. They might even send it by check. If they already reversed the transaction, contact your bank to determine where the funds went." }, { "docid": "578699", "title": "", "text": "It's in your interest to pay down these loans (just like any debt) at an accelerated rate, so long as you prioritize it appropriately and don't jeopardize your financial situation. What are your plans for the $50k? Is it a downpayment on a house? Are you already saving for retirement? At what rate are you saving each year? These are all important questions. There is nothing wrong with using some of the $50k to make a dent in your loans, but overpaying a debt at 6% should not be your first priority. Save for retirement, pay off credit cards, make sure you have an emergency fund of between 6-12 months living expenses (depending on your comfort level as well as how stable you think your job is, and how much you could downsize if need be). Then, tackle extra loan payments. Unfortunately 6% is about what you would expect to get in the market these days, so you can't necessarily make more money investing your remaining cash on hand as compared to putting it towards your loans. And you could always make less. Personally, I would divide the $50k as follows. Insert your own numbers/circumstances :) Of the ~$30k that remains..." } ]

[ { "docid": "170594", "title": "", "text": "You might want to just keep it in cash. For one step further you could do an even split of USD, EUR and silver. USD hedges against loss of value in the euro, precious metal hedges against a global financial problem. Silver over gold because of high gold:silver ratio is high. You could lose money this way. There are some bad things that can happen that will make your portfolio fall, but there are also many bad things that can happen that would result in no change or gain. With careful trades in stocks and even more aggressive assets, you could conceivably see large returns. But since you're novice, you won't be able to make these trades, and you'll just lose your investment. Ordinarily, novices can buy an S&P ETF and enjoy decent return (7-8% annual on average) at reasonable risk, but that only works if you stay invested for many years. In the short term, S&P can crash pretty badly, and stay low for a year or more. If you can just wait it out, great (it has always recovered eventually), but if some emergency forces you to take the money out you'd have to do so at a big loss. Lately, the index has shown signs of being overvalued. If you buy it now, you could luck out and be 10-15% up in a year, but you could also end up 30% down - not a very favorable risk/reward rate. Which is why I would hold on to my cash until it does crash (or failing that, starts looking more robust again) and then think about investing." } ]

[ { "docid": "323946", "title": "", "text": "First the obvious: Business school rankings are flawed. I have no doubt that Asian business schools are improving rapidly, and many are already on par with Western universities. Many of the best teachers at US/European schools are also teaching in Asia (I have never had an Asian teacher but I expect that they are as great as their Western counterparts). Also, academic journals accept more and more Asian submissions. But we also have to put the numbers in perspective. An American student who did an MBA in China will have a hard time getting a job in the US. Even those who go to European universities are met by recruiters with puzzlement. So these the high ranking of Asian schools is really only relevant for Asian students. In short, what the ranking says is: If you're Chinese, you don't *need* to go to the US or Europe for your business degree. Personally I suggest you still do if you can afford it, because the experience abroad, and the exposure to students with a different attitude, will be an enrichment." }, { "docid": "395796", "title": "", "text": "\"Sounds like my internship! I'm at a major bank and doing some back office stuff as well. I'm at work as I type this. No one really has anything for me to do, so I sit in my cubicle and read e-books and make DCF models for fun until I get a rare \"\"project\"\". I might as well learn something while I'm not doing anything, right? Don't quit though. Maybe ask for more responsiblity. Or do what I do and use it to learn. Either way, you can make your internship sound good on a resume, especially if your employer has a good name.\"" }, { "docid": "166885", "title": "", "text": "You have no idea where interest rates will go. A year or two ago people thought 3% was absurdly low, why buy them? And then interest rates dropped even further, so the people who bought then got more interest AND the present value went up since then. If you'd done nothing you would have lost money. Now, rates are REALLY absurdly low. What do? Well, they could drop even more! It's possible. We could also have 20 years of flatline - see Japan. Sitting on your hands loses money. What else should you do? Put your money in risky equities? A lot of people these days are buying dividend paying stocks now. It's extremely foolhardy to treat stocks as fixed income because they are very far from it. Overextending yourself and taking on too equity risk, IMO, is FAR more risky than accepting low interest rates+interest rate risk. Finally: I don't exactly use bonds to make money, I use it as a safe haven while I wait for stocks to do something. Stocks go up, I sell some and buy bonds. Bonds go up I sell them and buy more stock. It's nice to get a little interest on the side but not critical. I could use cash (or 1month tbills) but I'm comfortable with the amount of risk-return that 5-10year bonds provide." }, { "docid": "273567", "title": "", "text": "Sample Numbers: Owe $100k on house. House (after 'crash') valued at: $50K. Reason for consternation: What rational person pays $100k for property that is only worth half that amount? True Story: My neighbor paid almost $250K (a quarter-of-a-million dollars - think about that..) for a house that when he walked (ran!) away from it was sold by the bank for $88K. Unless he declares bankruptcy (and forgoes all his other assets, including retirement savings) he still owes the bank the difference. And even with bankruptcy, he may still owe the bank - this should cause anyone to be a bit concerned about being up-side down in a mortgage loan." }, { "docid": "248697", "title": "", "text": "Maybe there's more to this story, because as written, your sister seems, well, a little irrational. Is it possible that the bank will try to cheat you and demand that you pay a loan again that you've already paid off? Or maybe not deliberately cheat you, but make a mistake and lose track of the fact that you paid? Sure, it's POSSIBLE. But if you're going to agonize about that, what about all the other possible ways that someone could cheat you? What if you go to a store, hand over your cash for the purchase, and then the clerk insists that you never gave him any cash? What if you buy a car and it turns out to be stolen? What if you buy insurance and when you have a claim the insurance company refuses to pay? What if someone you've never met or even heard of before suddenly claims that you are the father of her baby and demands child support? Etc etc. Realistically, banks are fanatical about record-keeping. Their business is pretty much all about record-keeping. Mistakes like this are very rare. And a big business like a bank is unlikely to blatantly cheat you. They can and do make millions of dollars legally. Why should they break the law and risk paying huge fines and going to prison for a few hundred dollars? They may give you a lousy deal, like charge you outrageous overdraft fees and pay piddling interest on your deposit, but they're not going to lie about how much you owe. They just don't. I suggest that you not live your life in fear of all the might-be's. Take reasonable steps to protect yourself and get on with it. Read contracts before you sign, even if the other person gets impatient while you sit there reading. ESPECIALLY if the other person insists that you sign without reading. When you pay off a loan, you should get a piece of paper from the bank saying the loan has been paid. Stuff this piece of paper in a filing cabinet and keep it for years and years. Get a copy of your credit report periodically and make sure that there are no errors on it, like incorrect loan balances. I check mine once every year or two. Some people advise checking it every couple of months. It all depends how nervous you are and how much time you want to spend on it. Then get on with your life. Has your sister had some bad experience with loans in the past? Or has she never borrowed money and she's just confused about how it works? That's why I wonder if there's more to the story, if there's some basis for her fears." }, { "docid": "74842", "title": "", "text": "I don't know which online casino we are talking about, but I would venture to say that online casinos, in general, are probably not the most trustworthy of businesses. Caution is certainly in order. That having been said, this isn't an e-mail from a stranger that contacted you out of the blue; you obviously trust them enough to have deposited some money with them, and it seems that they now owe you money. Let's assume for the moment that they are legitimate, and that they sincerely want to pay out your winnings. If they are to pay you via a wire transfer, they would need your account number and routing number. (This information is on every check that you write.) In addition, if this is an international transfer, they would also need your bank's SWIFT number, or possibly an IBAN code. It does seem odd that they would pay you a partial payment with a check, but the rest has to be done via a wire transfer. You could request that they send the remainder as a check, but I would imagine that if they refuse to send you a check, there is nothing you can do about it. If you decide to go ahead with the wire transfer, you could open up a new savings account with your bank first. Then you could provide the account number for this new account, and if they are intending to clean out your account, there will be nothing in it. (For extra protection, when you set up the account, you could ask the bank if they can set up a savings account that will accept incoming wire deposits, but no outgoing electronic withdrawals.) Either way, when you deposit the check you have and you receive this wire transfer, don't spend this money for a while. Just let it sit in your account (you could transfer it to your main account, if you like), and wait a few weeks. That way, if there is a problem with these payments and your bank insists on the money back, you will not be in trouble. If they send you more than they owe you and ask for some of it back, it will be a clear indication of a scam. Don't send them any money back. After a few weeks, you should be in the clear. Good luck. By the way, online gambling is a terrible idea. The fact that you don't trust the casino to pay out should tell you a lot about this industry. After you receive these winnings (or even if you don't), the best advice I can give you is to stop gambling." }, { "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": "505134", "title": "", "text": "\"I am perfectly qualified to not use an accountant. I am a business professor, and my work crosses over into accounting quite a bit. I would certainly find a CPA that is reputable and hire them for advice before starting. I know a physicist who didn't do that and found they ended up with $78,000 in fines. There are a number of specific things an accountant might provide that Quickbooks will not. First and foremost, they are an outsider's set of eyes. If they are good, they will find a polite way to say \"\"you want to do what?!?!?!\"\" If they are good, they won't fall out of their chair, their jaw won't drop to the floor, and they won't giggle until they get home. A good accountant has seen around a hundred successful and unsuccessful businesses. They have seen everything you may have thought of. Intelligence is learning from your own mistakes, wisdom is learning from the mistakes of others. Accountants are the repositories of wisdom. An accountant can point out weaknesses in your plan and help you shore it up. They can provide information about the local market that you may not be aware of. They can assist you with understanding the long run consequences of the legal form that you choose. They can assist you in understanding the trade-offs of different funding models. They can also do tasks that you are not talented at and which will take a lot of time if you do it, and little time if they do it. There is a reason that accountants are required to have 160 semester hours to sit for the CPA. They also have to have a few thousand field hours before they can sit for it as well. There is one thing you may want to keep in mind though. An accountant will often do what you ask them to do, so think about what you want before you visit the accountant. Also, remember to ask the question \"\"is there a question I should have asked but didn't?\"\"\"" }, { "docid": "578906", "title": "", "text": "I would tell the former owner that you will sell him the house for you current loan balance. He wants the home, he may be willing to pay what you owe. You can't really do a short sale unless you are behind on your payments. Banks only agree to a short sale when they think they are going to have to foreclose on the property. Not to mention a short sale is almost as bad as a foreclosure and will wreck your credit. If the former buying is not willing to buy the house for what you owe your only real option is to come up with the difference. If he offers you say $50K less than you owe, you will have to give the mortgage holder the remaining balance $50K in this example for them to release the property. Another problem you will face, if the former owner is willing to pay more than what the house is worth, and he is going to finance it, he will have to have enough cash to put down so that the loan amount is not more than the property is worth. Finally if none of that works you can just hold on to the property until the value comes up or you mortgage is payed down enough to make the balance of the mortgage less than the value of the house. Then offer the property to the former owner again." }, { "docid": "237564", "title": "", "text": "I ended up just trying. I gave A the IBAN of B's account, which I calculated online based on the bank code and account number (because B claimed IBAN won't work, so didn't give it to me), and B's name. A was able to transfer the money apparently without extra difficulties, and it appeared on B's account on the same day. Contrary to some other posts here, IBAN has nothing to do with the Euro zone, nor is it a European system. It started in Europe, but it has been adopted as an ISO standard (link). As usual of course some countries don't see the urgency to follow an international standard :) XE.com has a list of all IBAN countries; quite a few are non-European. Here is even the list formatted specially for the European-or-not discussion: link." }, { "docid": "516444", "title": "", "text": "\"I'd like to suggest a plan. First, I know you want to buy a house. I get that, and that is an awesome goal to work for. You need to really sit down and decide why you want a house. People often tell we that they want a house because they are throwing their money away renting. This is just not true. There is a cost of renting, that is true, but there is also a cost of owning. There are many things with a house that you will have to pay for that will add little or no equity/value. Now that equity is nice to have, but make no mistake under no circumstance does every dime you put into your house increase its value. This is a huge misconception. There is interest, fees, repairs, taxes, and a bunch of other stuff that you will spend money on that will not increase the value of your home. You will do no harm, waiting a bit, renting, and getting to a better place before you buy a house. With that out of the way, time for the plan. Note: I'm not saying wait to buy a house; I am saying think of these as steps in the large house buying plan. Get your current debt under control. Your credit score doesn't suck, but it's not good either. It's middle of the road. Your going to want that higher if you can, but more importantly than that, you want to get into a pattern of making debt then honoring it. The single best advise I can give you is what my wife and I did. Get a credit card (you have one; don't get more) and then get into a habit of not spending more on that credit card than you actually have in the bank. If you have $50 in the bank, only spend that on your credit card. Then pay it in full, 100%, every payday (twice a month). This will improve your score quite a bit, and will, in time, get you in the habit of buying only what you can afford. Unless there has been an emergency, you should not be spending more on credit than you actually have. Your car loan needs to get under control. I'm not going to tell you to pay it off completely, but see point 2. Your car debt should not be more than you have in the bank. This, again is a credit building step. If you have 7.5k in the bank and own 7.5k on your car, your ability to get a loan will improve greatly. Start envelope budgeting. There are many systems out there, but I like YNAB a lot. It can totally turn your situation around in just a few months. It will also allow you to see your \"\"house fund\"\" growing. Breaking Point So far this sounds like a long wait, but it's not. It also sounds like I am saying to wait to actually buy a house, and I'm not. I am not saying get your debt to 0, nor do I think you should wait that long. The idea is that you get your debt under control and build a nice solid set of habits to keep it under control. A look at your finances at this point Now, at this point you still have debt, but your credit cards are at 0 and have been, every payday for a few months. Your car loan still exists, but you have money in the bank to cover this debt, and you could pay it off. It would eat your nest egg, but you could. You also have 15k set aside, just for the house. As you take longer looking for that perfect house, that number keeps growing. Your bank account now has over $25,000 in it. That's a good feeling on its own, and if you stick with your plan, buy your house and put down $15k, you still have plenty of wiggle room between credit cards that are not maxed out, and a $7.5k \"\"padding\"\" in case the roof falls in. Again it sounds like I'm saying wait. But I'm not, I'm saying plan better. All of these goals are very doable inside one year, a rough year to be sure, but doable. If you want to do it comfortably, then take two years. In that time you're looking, searching and learning.\"" }, { "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": "214845", "title": "", "text": "I am a big fan of what we call inheritance tax. I think it is by far the fairest way we have of redistributing wealth. I don't believe a kid should be entitled to the parents ability to earn and that they should have to achieve that themselves. The relationship is clearly complicated between welfare and employment. I believe the US employment issues are far more to do with the overall economy and less to do with benefits. The nations that do have high welfare and good employment, such as the scandie nations, have not been as effected by the global downturn for numerous other reasons (Norway is essentially one giant oil hedge fund) and so are hard to compare. Any southern European nation can be an example of the opposite." }, { "docid": "92462", "title": "", "text": "Are there banks where you can open a bank account without being a citizen of that country without having to visit the bank in person? I've done it the other way around, opened a bank account in the UK so I have a way to store GBP. Given that Britain is still in the EU you can basically open an account anywhere. German online banks for instance allow you to administrate anything online, should there be cards issued you would need an address in the country. And for opening an account a passport is sufficient, you can identify yourself in a video chat. Now what's the downside? French banks' online services are in French, German banks' services are in German. If that doesn't put you off, I would name such banks in the comments if asked. Are there any online services for investing money that aren't tied to any particular country? Can you clarify that? You should at least be able to buy into any European or American stock through your broker. That should give you an ease of mind being FCA-regulated. However, those are usually GDRs (global depository receipts) and denominated in GBp (pence) so you'd be visually exposed to currency rates, by which I mean that if the stock goes up 1% but the GBP goes up 1% in the same period then your GDR would show a 0% profit on that day; also, and more annoyingly, dividends are distributed in the foreign currency, then exchanged by the issuer of the GDR on that day and booked into your account, so if you want to be in full control of the cashflows you should get a trading account denominated in the currency (and maybe situated in the country) you're planning to invest in. If you're really serious about it, some brokers/banks offer multi-currency trading accounts (again I will name them if asked) where you can trade a wide range of instruments natively (i.e. on the primary exchanges) and you get to manage everything in one interface. Those accounts typically include access to the foreign exchange markets so you can move cash between your accounts freely (well for a surcharge). Also, typically each subaccount is issued its own IBAN." }, { "docid": "492656", "title": "", "text": "\"If you can afford it, I would give her the money. It is likely that she will not pay you back and then you would lose a friend. This friend cannot afford the car. If you want to be a really good friend, offer different options like buying a junker until she can save up for a nicer car. Based on your comment, I am gathering the following: Sorry to beat a dead horse, but lending the money is akin to giving her the money. So if you don't want to give it to her, then you can't lend it to her. She has \"\"car fever\"\", she thinks she cannot live her life without this car. She can, and you know it. In a week or two, she will have forgotten all about it. Since you cannot really say no (for whatever reason) you can \"\"pocket veto\"\" the idea through distraction. Make her do a lot more legwork and in the end she will probably forget about it. So what I might suggest to her is that she goes to a credit union or a local bank to try for a car loan and see what they say. You might sweeten the deal by saying they typically have lower interest rates then the place that is offering the loan now. Alternatively you should tell her to let the car deal sit for a couple of weeks to see if you can talk them down on price. The key is stalling, so the next shinny thing distracts her. Now the dad in me is going to come out, please consider yourself yelled at for these items: Have a nice day.\"" }, { "docid": "8601", "title": "", "text": "Setting aside for the moment the very relevant issue of whether you need the full amount quickly, I'll just tackle comparing which option gives you to maximum amount of money (in terms of real dollars). The trick is, unless you think inflation will suddenly reverse itself or stop entirely (not likely), $50K today is worth a LOT more than $50K in 20 years. If you don't believe me, consider that just 30 years ago the average price for a mid-level new car was around $3k. When you grandfather says he got a burger for a nickel, he isn't talking about 2010 dollars. So, how do you account for this? Well, the way financial people and project managers do it to estimate how much to pay today for $1 at some point in the future is through a net present value (NPV) calculation. You can find a calculator here. In your question, you gave some numbers for the payout, but not the lump sum prize amount. Going solely on what you have provided, I calculate that you should take the lump sum if it is greater than $766,189.96 which is the net present value of 20 years of $50K Payments assuming 3% annual inflation, which is fairly a fairly reasonable number given history. However, if you think the out-of-control Gov't spending is going to send inflation through the roof (possible, but not a given), then you almost certainly would want the lump sum. I suppose in that scenario you might want the lump sum anyway because if the Govt starts filching on their obligations, doing it to a small number of lottery winners might be politically more popular than cutting other programs that affect a large number of voters." }, { "docid": "487502", "title": "", "text": "Transaction fees are part of the income for banks, and as we know they are profit making corporations just like any other Company. The differene is that instead of buying and packing and Selling groceries, they buy and package and sell Money. Within the rules and the market they will try to maximize their profit, exactly like Apple or GM or Walmart and so on. Sweden and Holland are part of the European union and the leaders of the union has defined (by law) that certain types of transactions should be done without fees. In order to transfer Money from your Swedish account to the Dutch account you do what is called a SEPA transaction, which should be done in one day without cost to you as a customer. Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Euro_Payments_Area Gunnar" }, { "docid": "362035", "title": "", "text": "My experience (from European countries, but not Portugal specifically) is that it's better to change in the European country, as many banks will give you US $ as a matter of course, while in the US (insular place that it is), it can be rather difficult to find a place to exchange money outside an international airport. In fact, I have a few hundred Euros left from my last trip, several years ago. Expected to make another trip which didn't come off, and haven't found a place to exchange them. PS: Just for information's sake, at the time I was working in Europe, and found that by far the easiest way to transfer part of my salary back home was to get $100 bills from my European bank. Another way was to withdraw money from an ATM, as the US & European banks were on the same network. Unfortunately the IRS put a stop to that, though I don't know if it was all banks, or just the particular one I was using. Might be worth checking, though." }, { "docid": "541302", "title": "", "text": "\"&gt;first is that investors are perfectly rationale allocators of capital. Yes, they are rational, and far superior to the government. &gt; that excess capital is invested - at all It is either invested, or converted to consumption that Hanauer claims to be so important &gt;that taxation (presumably what is considered \"\"high\"\") has caused unproductive investing practices, when in fact the inverse is true nonsense, and stupid. unworthy of further comment &gt;have resulted in the incentive for investors to sit on their capital and do nothing to return it to the system. wrong. people don't sit on cash. &gt;that investing profits back into expansion and worker compensation is misallocation of resources. Yes, it absolutely is unless the people in charge have determined that the ROI is sufficient. Without adequate reward, you are literally just burning money. &gt;giving precedence to the relatively elite investor class ensures that capital is allocated according to their whims You mean retail investors and pension funds? yeah, so elite, such whims. You act like stock holders are all fat cats smoking cigars in a country club. &gt;and often times that simply means into their bank accounts. Wow, such retardation: - rich people don't just leave mountains of cash in bank accounts - even if they did, the bank would be using that money to fund loans, etc, so it's still \"\"in the system\"\" &gt;i would like others to know that what you are saying is widely debunked, chicago school nonsense You sound like a very pretentious liberal who wants very badly for the reality of economics to not be true because it conflicts with your political beliefs &gt;a few hours of unbiased research will make this evident everything in your post is written is a jaw-droppingly pretentious style, almost like you see yourself as posing for the cover of the New Yorker as one of those fat cats you despise\"" } ]

[ { "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": "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": "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": "294424", "title": "", "text": "\"Regarding \"\"Interest on idle cash\"\", brokerage firms must maintain a segregated account on the brokerage firm's books to make sure that the client's money and the firm's money is not intermingled, and clients funds are not used for operational purposes. Source. Thus, brokerage firms do not earn interest on cash that is held unused in client accounts. Regarding \"\"Exchanges pay firm for liquidity\"\", I am not aware of any circumstances under which an exchange will pay a brokerage any such fee. In fact, the opposite is the case. Exchanges charge participants to transact business. See : How the NYSE makes money Similarly, market makers do not pay a broker to transact business on their behalf. They charge the broker a commission just like the broker charges their client a commission. Of course, a large broker may also be acting as market maker or deal directly with the exchange, in which case no such commission will be incurred by the broker. In any case, the broker will pay a commission to the clearing house.\"" }, { "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": "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": "526422", "title": "", "text": "\"The question is asking for a European equivalent of the so-called \"\"Couch Potato\"\" portfolio. \"\"Couch Potato\"\" portfolio is defined by the two URLs provided in question as, Criteria for fund composition Fixed-income: Regardless of country or supra-national market, the fixed-income fund should have holdings throughout the entire length of the yield curve (most available maturities), as well as being a mix of government, municipal (general obligation), corporate and high-yield bonds. Equity: The common equity position should be in one equity market index fund. It shouldn't be a DAX-30 or CAC-40 or DJIA type fund. Instead, you want a combination of growth and value companies. The fund should have as many holdings as possible, while avoiding too much expense due to transaction costs. You can determine how much is too much by comparing candidate funds with those that are only investing in highly liquid, large company stocks. Why it is easier for U.S. and Canadian couch potatoes It will be easier to find two good funds, at lower cost, if one is investing in a country with sizable markets and its own currency. That's why the Couch Potato strategy lends itself most naturally to the U.S.A, Canada, Japan and probably Australia, Brazil, South Korea and possibly Mexico too. In Europe, pre-EU, any of Germany, France, Spain, Italy or the Scandinavian countries would probably have worked well. The only concern would be (possibly) higher equity transactions costs and certainly larger fixed-income buy-sell spreads, due to smaller and less liquid markets other than Germany. These costs would be experienced by the portfolio manager, and passed on to you, as the investor. For the EU couch potato Remember the criteria, especially part 2, and the intent as described by the Couch Potato name, implying extremely passive investing. You want to choose two funds offered by very stable, reputable fund management companies. You will be re-balancing every six months or a year, only. That is four transactions per year, maximum. You don't need a lot of interaction with anyone, but you DO need to have the means to quickly exit both sides of the trade, should you decide, for any reason, that you need the money or that the strategy isn't right for you. I would not choose an ETF from iShares just because it is easy to do online transactions. For many investors, that is important! Here, you don't need that convenience. Instead, you need stability and an index fund with a good reputation. You should try to choose an EU based fund manager, or one in your home country, as you'll be more likely to know who is good and who isn't. Don't use Vanguard's FTSE ETF or the equivalent, as there will probably be currency and foreign tax concerns, and possibly forex risk. The couch potato strategy requires an emphasis on low fees with high quality funds and brokers (if not buying directly from the fund). As for type of fund, it would be best to choose a fund that is invested in mostly or only EU or EEU (European Economic Union) stocks, and the same for bonds. That will help minimize your transaction costs and tax liability, while allowing for the sort of broad diversity that helps buy and hold index fund investors.\"" }, { "docid": "334495", "title": "", "text": "You have two problems, money exchange commissions and currency risk. Commissions are always exorbitant. First you must find the cheapest way to get your money converted to the foreign currency and into your brokerage account. The absolute cheapest way may involve some research and financial institution maneuvering. Also I'd forget about anything other than USD for the foreseeable future. Any other foreign currency will probably have higher commissions and a weaker market. Once you have that down, you must avoid needlessly exchanging currencies. Keep a balance in the foreign currency, keep all dividends and capital gains there, and only take local money out of your brokerage account right before using it. That means of course that you need to keep enough local currency to pay taxes on any gains, etc. As for currency risk, there are two solutions. One solution is to buy your risk away using forex. You sell an amount of USD/AED lots that is mostly equivalent to your current investments and then just make sure you don't get margin calls. I'm not sure just how cheap your rates would be in the UAE, but, on average, your investments should still have positive returns. The other solution is to just stop seeing exchange rate fluctuations as losses. If you had USD 100k and now you have USD 115k how are you losing money? Exchange rates can go the other way just fine, you know, and holding USD is a good way to hedge against your country going south." }, { "docid": "313897", "title": "", "text": "An ETF manager will only allow certain financial organisations to create and redeem ETF shares. These are called Authorised Participants (APs). The APs have the resources to bundled up packages of shares that they already own and hold in order to match the ETFs requirements. In the case of the EDEN ETF, this portfolio is the MSCI Denmark Index. Only APs transact business directly with the ETF manager. When ETF shares need to be created, the AP will bundle up the portfolio of shares and deliver them to the ETF manager. In return, the ETF manager will deliver to the AP the corresponding number of shares in the ETF. Note that no cash changes hands here. (These ETF shares are now available for trading in the market via the AP. Note that investors do not transact business directly with the ETF manager.) Similarly, when ETF shares need to be redeemed, the AP will deliver the ETF shares to the ETF manager. In return, the ETF manager will deliver to the AP the corresponding portfolio of shares. Again, no cash changes hands here. Normally, with an established and liquid ETF, investors like you and me will transact small purchases and sales of ETF shares with other small investors in the market. In the event that an AP needs to transact business with an investor, they will do so by either buying or selling the ETF shares. In the event that they have insufficient ETF shares to meet demand, they will bundle up a portfolio deliver them to the ETF provider in return for ETF shares, thus enabling them to meet demand. In the event that a lot of investors are selling and the AP ends up holding an excessive amount of ETF shares, they will deliver unwanted shares to the ETF manager in exchange for a portfolio of the underlying shares. According to this scheme, large liquidations of ETF holdings should not effect the share prices of the underlying portfolio. This is because the underlying shares are not sold in the market, rather they are simply returned to the AP in exchange for the ETF shares (Recall that no cash is changing hands in this type of transaction). The corresponding trail of dividends and distributions to ETF share holders follows the same scheme." }, { "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": "508895", "title": "", "text": "U.S. citizens are allowed to own foreign bank and investment accounts. However, there are various financial and tax reporting requirements for owners of such accounts. Even when there is no foreign income involved. For example famous FBAR (Fincen Report Form 114), Form 8938, and even more forms if your assets/activities abroad become more complicated. Penalties, even for unintentional non-compliance can be Draconian. So just keep in mind, that once you start having foreign accounts, you will start having additional obligations and might spend more money and time on tax preparation. If you are ok with that, then its cool. But... assuming your gloomy predictions on Trump presidency come true. They might be accompanied by more strict capital control, reporting requirements, and may become even greater pain in the neck for people with foreign assets. Regarding recommendations, I am not sure about banks, but there are some foreign precious metal investing companies that are completely online based such as https://www.bullionvault.com/ and https://www.goldmoney.com/. These might also guard you from potential problems with US dollar." }, { "docid": "269559", "title": "", "text": "You are correct that it is relatively easy for someone to create fake checks and steal money. They even made a movie about it, and not much has changed since that movie takes place. However, most checking accounts do indeed have $0 liability for this type of check fraud, referred to as check forgery. If someone does cash a check against your account that you did not write, you will eventually get your money back. Essentially, the thief stole from the bank (or the merchant that accepted the check), not from you. In the U.S., check forgery is generally covered by state law. According to a Q&A on the CFPB website, if you report to the bank that a check that cleared your account was forged in some way, and you do this within a reporting window defined by state law, the bank is supposed to return your money." }, { "docid": "102620", "title": "", "text": "You are diversified within a particular type of security. Notably the stock market. A truly diversified portfolio not only has multiple types of holdings within a single type of security (what your broad market fund does) but between different types. You have partially succeeded in doing this with the international fund - that way your risk is spread between domestic and international stocks. But there are other holdings. Cash, bonds, commodities, real estate, etc. There are broad index funds/ETFs for those as well, which may reduce your risk when the stock market as a whole tanks - which it does on occasion." }, { "docid": "558544", "title": "", "text": "The only fee you incur when buying an ETF is the commission. If you have a brokerage account at Schwab/Fidelity/E-TRADE/Vanguard or any number of banks you won't pay more than $10 per transaction (regardless of the size of the transaction). I use Schwab which charges $5 per trade, but you can open a Robinhood account (it's a discount brokerage) for free, $0 commission trades. It lacks features that paying platforms have, but it's great for beginners. You'll get a dividend each quarter (every 3 months) for most ETFs." }, { "docid": "213331", "title": "", "text": "\"Your friend probably cannot deposit the check to your U.S. bank account. U.S. banks that I've worked with will not accept a deposit from someone who is not an owner of the account. I don't know why not. If some stranger wants to make unauthorized deposits to my account, why should I object? But that's the common rule. You could endorse the check, your friend could then deposit it to his own account or cash it, and then transfer the money to you in a variety of ways. But I think it would be easier to just deposit the check in your account wherever it is you live. Most banks have no problem with depositing a foreign check. There may be a fairly long delay before you can get access to the money while the check clears through the system. I don't know exactly what you mean by a \"\"prize check\"\", but assuming that this is taxable income, yes, I assume the U.S. government would want their hard-earned share of your money. These days you can pay U.S. taxes on-line if you have a credit card. If you have not already paid U.S. taxes for the year, you should make an \"\"estimated payment\"\". i.e. you can't wait until April 15 of the next year, you have to pay most or all of the taxes you will owe in the calendar year you earned it.\"" }, { "docid": "241433", "title": "", "text": "Most important: Any gains you make from risking this sum of money over the next few years will not be life changing, but if you can't afford to lose it, then losses can be. Rhetorical question: How can you trust what I say you should do with your money? Answer: You can't. I'm happy to hear you're reading about the stock market, so please allow me to encourage you to keep learning. And broaden your target to investing, or even further, to financial planning. You may decide to pay down debt first. You may decide to hold cash since you need it within a couple years. Least important: I suggest a Roth IRA at any online discount brokerage whose fees to open an account plus 1 transaction fee are the lowest to get you into a broad-market index ETF or mutual fund." }, { "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": "32671", "title": "", "text": "\"The receiving Roth IRA custodian will almost certainly not charge you anything; they are eager to get their hands on the money. In fact, the easiest and most efficient way is to fill out the forms for opening a Roth IRA account with the new custodian (most of this can be done online, but it might be necessary to print out a paper form, sign it and send/fax it to the company), tell them that the Roth IRA will be funded by a trustee-to-trustee transfer from the current custodian, and tell them to go get the money from the online bank who is the current custodian of your Roth IRA account. Don't approach your online bank and tell them to send the money to your new Roth IRA custodian; it will cost money and take more time and the likelihood of a screw-up is way too high. The current custodian might charge you a fee for closing the account, or for \"\"breaking a CD\"\" if that savings account is a CD and you are withdrawing the money before the maturity date of the CD. This will be spelled out in the Roth IRA custodial agreement that you accepted when you opened the account (but most likely did not read in full when you received it, and might even have discarded). One final note: with just $11K, please do not open a brokerage account for your Roth IRA and invest in stocks, bonds etc. For now, invest all your Roth IRA in a single low-cost mutual fund (preferably an index fund such as the Vanguard S&P 500 Index fund or Fidelity Spartan 500 fund); you can branch out into more funds when you have more money in your Roth IRA. Investing in these funds does not need you to have a brokerage account; you can do it directly on the fund's website. Avoid (for now) the siren song of Exchange-Traded Funds (ETFs) because you need to have a brokerage account to buy and sell them. When you have more money in your Roth IRA account, say in ten years' time, you can start investing in individual stocks, ETFs and the like through a brokerage account, but don't do it now.\"" }, { "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": "198572", "title": "", "text": "\"I have a similar situation -- five different accounts between me and my wife. Just as you and @Alex B describe, I maintain my asset allocation across the combination of all accounts. I also maintain a spreadsheet to track the targets, deviations from the targets, amounts required to get back in balance, and overall performance. I (mostly) don't use mutual funds. I have selected, for each category, 1 or 2 ETFs. Choosing index ETFs with low expense ratios and a brokerage with cheap or free trades keeps expenses low. (My broker offers free ETF trades if you buy off their list as long as you aren't short-term trading; this is great for rebalancing for free 2 or 3 times a year.) Using ETFs also solves the minimum balance problem -- but watch out for commissions. If you pay $10 to buy $500 worth of an ETF, that's an immediate 2% loss; trade a couple of times a year and that ETF has to gain 5% just to break even. One issue that comes up is managing cash and avoiding transaction fees. Say your IRA has all the growth stock funds and your Roth has the bonds. Stocks do well and bonds do poorly, so you sell off some stocks, which creates a bunch of cash in your IRA. Now you want to buy some bonds but you don't have enough cash in your Roth, so you buy the bonds in your IRA. Not a problem at first but if you don't manage it you can end up with small amounts of various funds spread across all of your accounts. If you're not careful you can end up paying two commissions (in two different accounts) to sell off / purchase enough of a category to get back to your targets. Another problem I had is that only one account (401k) is receiving deposits on a regular basis, and that's all going into an S&P 500 index fund. This makes it so that my allocation is off by a fair amount every quarter or so -- too much in large cap equities, not enough of everything else. My solution to this going forward is to \"\"over-rebalance\"\" a couple of times a year: sell enough SPY from my other accounts so that I'm under-allocated in large caps by the amount I expect to add to my 401k over the next 3 months. (So that in six months at my next rebalancing I'm only 3 months over-allocated to large caps -- plus or minus whatever gains/losses there are.)\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "374309", "title": "", "text": "If you've got shares in a company that's filed for U.S. Chapter 11 bankruptcy, that sucks, it really does. I've been there before and you may lose your entire investment. If there's still a market for your shares and you can sell them, you may want to just accept the loss and get out with what you can. However, shares of bankrupt companies are often delisted once bankrupt, since the company no longer meets minimum exchange listing requirements. If you're stuck holding shares with no market, you could lose everything – but that's not always the case: Chapter 11 isn't total and final bankruptcy where the company ceases to exist after liquidation of its assets to pay off its debts. Rather, Chapter 11 is a section of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code that permits a company to attempt to reorganize (or renegotiate) its debt obligations. During Chapter 11 reorganization, a company can negotiate with its creditors for a better arrangement. They typically need to demonstrate to creditors that without the burden of the heavy debt, they could achieve profitability. Such reorganization often involves creditors taking complete or majority ownership of the company when it emerges from Chapter 11 through a debt-for-equity swap. That's why you, as an investor before the bankruptcy, are very likely to get nothing or just pennies on the dollar. Any equity you may be left holding will be considerably diluted in value. It's rare that shareholders before a Chapter 11 bankruptcy still retain any equity after the company emerges from Chapter 11, but it is possible. But it varies from bankruptcy to bankruptcy and it can be complex as montyloree pointed out. Investopedia has a great article: An Overview of Corporate Bankruptcy. Here's an excerpt: If a company you've got a stake in files for bankruptcy, chances are you'll get back pennies to the dollar. Different bankruptcy proceedings or filings generally give some idea as to whether the average investor will get back all or a portion of his investment, but even that is determined on a case-by-case basis. There is also a pecking order of creditors and investors of who get paid back first, second and last. In this article, we'll explain what happens when a public company files for protection under U.S. bankruptcy laws and how it affects investors. [...] How It Affects Investors [...] When your company goes bankrupt, there is a very good chance you will not get back the full value of your investment. In fact, there is a chance you won't get anything back. [...] Wikipedia has a good article on Chapter 11 bankruptcy at Chapter 11, Title 11, United States Code." } ]

[ { "docid": "533201", "title": "", "text": "I strongly urge you against this despite the fact that you may enjoy lucrative interest rates in the short run. Considering the reckless usage of deposits and other public monies to build buildings just to claim that gdp is high (they count the cost of real estate as investment not their final sales as the rest of the world does), all depositors in Chinese banks stand to lose or at least have their funds frozen (since all credit funding the real estate building comes from the banks and taxes & land seizures to a lesser degree). China's reckless building: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wm7rOKT151Y East Asian Crisis (Chapters 11 & 12): http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/lo/story/ch_menu_03.html This can be prolonged if they open their financial system to outside funding, but that will also amplify the effect." }, { "docid": "591079", "title": "", "text": "Is it just -34*4.58= -$155.72 for CCC and -11*0.41= -$4.51 for DDD? Yes it needs to be recorded as negative because at some point in time, the investor will have to spend money to buy these shares [cover the short sell and return the borrowed shares]. Whether the investor made profit or loss will not be reflected as you are only reflecting the current share inventory." }, { "docid": "10634", "title": "", "text": "\"chapter 8 page 154: &gt;\"\"My point is that it's doubts and cynicism that keep most people poor and playing it safe...only a person's doubts keep them poor...'Cynics criticize and winners analyze' was one of [Rich Dad's] favorite mottos\"\" -from chapter 8 page 154 of Robert Kiyosaki's first print edition of *Rich Dad Poor Dad* The whole page is about abandoning cynicism and has nothing to do with that Glenn-Beck-style rant/editorial you've linked to.\"" }, { "docid": "265159", "title": "", "text": "The HMRC website says: Stock dividends are treated as income by virtue of CTA10/S1049, and taxable as savings income under Chapter 5 of Part 4 of ITTOIA05 (sections 409 to 414). ITTOIA05 is the Income Tax (Trading and Other Income) Act 2005, and says: 409 Charge to tax on stock dividend income (1) Income tax is charged on stock dividend income. (2) In this Chapter “stock dividend income” means the income that is treated as arising under section 410. 411 Income charged (1) Tax is charged under this Chapter on the amount of stock dividend income treated for income tax purposes as arising in the tax year. (2) That amount is the cash equivalent of the share capital on the issue of which the stock dividend income arises (see section 412), grossed up by reference to the dividend ordinary rate for the tax year." }, { "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": "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": "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": "209849", "title": "", "text": "Consolidation makes sense, if your friend has his act together and isn't going to run up more debt. Finding a lender will be tough. I'd suggest trying local credit unions, making sure first that there has been NO late or missed payments for 6-9 months. You need to talk to a human at a local lender who will give you informal guidance about what you need to approve, so you don't end up getting lots of declinations. If its more than $10k, it will be hard to get a loan like this from anyone. In that case, you need to focus on the smallest debts first, because your friend's cash flow is going to be pinched by making payments to multiple creditors. It's critical to pay all creditors on time for at least the minimum amount due. The problem is, once you start paying things down, the creditors will start ratcheting down credit limits. When that happens, you're at greater risk for getting nabbed with fees and higher minimum payments, which may be considered a universal default by other lenders. There isn't alot of detail here, but depending on income and the amount of debt, your friend should be prepared to file for Chapter 13 bankruptcy." }, { "docid": "550847", "title": "", "text": "\"Right now we're producing enough food feed everyone on the planet 5359 kcal per day ([FAO](http://www.fao.org/docrep/015/i2490e/i2490e03a.pdf)), around twice of what they need. In the US we're throwing away around 40% of the food we produce, and we're not using all available land, haven't even tried optimizing land use, and not all land used for animal farming is usable for growing crops. And meat isn't a problem for emissions, I posted this in [another thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/Documentaries/comments/558vdq/trailer_before_the_flood_2016_documentary_movie/d89jvuu/): --- Global GHG emissions from animal agriculture, including deforestation, is just 14.5% ([FAO/IPCC](http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/197623/icode/)). And in the US where you don't have deforestation issues *all* agriculture, including crops grown for human consumption, is just 8.1% of emissions: &gt; In 2012, emission sources accounted for in the Agricultural chapters were responsible for 8.1 percent of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. *Environmental Protection Agency*, [\"\"Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Agriculture\"\"](http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/ghgemissions/US-GHG-Inventory-2014-Chapter-6-Agriculture.pdf). The 2015 draft also shows that this is declining, as a percentage, to 7.6% ([chapter 5](http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/pdfs/usinventoryreport/US-GHG-Inventory-2015-Chapter-5-Agriculture.pdf)). Meanwhile we have 31% from electricity and another 27% from transportation: [Sector emission chart](http://imgur.com/r9qavFg) *EPA,* [\"\"Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions\"\"](http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/sources.html). Switching to clean energy, solar/wind/nuclear, and moving to alternative fuels would make a huge impact and address the actual problem far more efficiently. Blaming animal agriculture is just a [red herring](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring) pushed by groups with other motivations than climate change, it's not based on actual science.\"" }, { "docid": "473510", "title": "", "text": "You should not buy soley for the dividend. The price of BHP is going down for a reason. If you hold until the full years dividend is paid you will make 11% (which is $110 if you bought $1000 worth of shares), but if the share price keeps dropping, you might lose 50% on the stock. So you make $110 on dividends but lose $500 on stock price drop. A perfect way to lose money." }, { "docid": "406340", "title": "", "text": "\"Tough spot. I'm guessing the credit cards are a personal line of credit in their name and not the company's (the fact that the business can be liquidated separately from your parents means they did at least set up an LLC or similar business entity). Using personal debt to save a company that could have just been dissolved at little cost to their personal credit and finances was, indeed, a very bad move. The best possible end to this scenario for you and your parents would be if your parents could get the debt transferred to the LLC before dissolving it. At this point, with the company in such a long-standing negative situation, I would doubt that any creditor would give the business a loan (which was probably why your parents threw their own good money after bad with personal CCs). They might, in the right circumstances, be able to convince a judge to effectively transfer the debt to the corporate entity before liquidating it. That puts the debt where it should have been in the first place, and the CC companies will have to get in line. That means, in turn, that the card issuers will fight any such motion or decision tooth and nail, as long as there's any other option that gives them more hope of recovering their money. Your parents' only prayer for this to happen is if the CCs were used for the sole purpose of business expenses. If they were living off the CCs as well as using them to pay business debts, a judge, best-case, would only relieve the debts directly related to keeping the business afloat, and they'd be on the hook for what they had been living on. Bankruptcy is definitely an option. They will \"\"re-affirm\"\" their commitment to paying the mortgage and any other debts they can, and under a Chapter 13 the judge will then remand negotiations over what total portion of each card's balance is paid, over what time, and at what rate, to a mediator. Chapter 13 bankruptcy is the less damaging form to your parent's credit; they are at least attempting to make good on the debt. A Chapter 7 would wipe it away completely, but your parents would have to prove that they cannot pay the debt, by any means, and have no hope of ever paying the debt by any means. If they have any retirement savings, anything in their name for grandchildren's college funds, etc, the judge and CC issuers will point to it like a bird dog. Apart from that, their house is safe due to Florida's \"\"homestead\"\" laws, but furniture, appliances, clothing, jewelry, cars and other vehicles, pretty much anything of value that your parents cannot defend as being necessary for life, health, or the performance of whatever jobs they end up taking to dig themselves out of this, are all subject to seizure and auction. They may end up just selling the house anyway because it's too big for what they have left (or will ever have again). I do not, under any circumstance, recommend you putting your own finances at risk in this. You may gift money to help, or provide them a place to live while they get back on their feet, but do not \"\"give till it hurts\"\" for this. It sounds heartless, but if you remove your safety net to save your parents, then what happens if you need it? Your parents aren't going to be able to bail you out, and as a contractor, if you're effectively \"\"doing business as\"\" Reverend Gonzo Contracting, you don't have the debt shield your parents had. It looks like housing's faltering again due to the news that the Fed's going to start backing off; you could need that money to weather a \"\"double-dip\"\" in the housing sector over the next few months, and you may need it soon.\"" }, { "docid": "485863", "title": "", "text": "Thanks for the support. I think you're right with taking on one chapter at a time and doing the practice questions. As on now, my midterm is on chapters 1-7 and our test just passed was 1-4. I figure read the new stuff before the old and always do the practice tests." }, { "docid": "365627", "title": "", "text": "\"If a stock is trading for $11 per share just before a $1 per share dividend is declared, then the share price drops to $10 per share immediately following the declaration. If you owned 100 shares (valued at $1100) before the dividend was declared, then you still own 100 shares (now valued at $1000). Generally, if the dividend is paid today, only the owners of shares as of yesterday evening (or the day before maybe) get paid the dividend. If you bought those 100 shares only this morning, the dividend gets paid to the seller (who owned the stock until yesterday evening), not to you. You just \"\"bought a dividend:\"\" paying $1100 for 100 shares that are worth only $1000 at the end of the day, whereas if you had just been a little less eager to purchase right now, you could have bought those 100 shares for only $1000. But, looking at the bright side, if you bought the shares earlier than yesterday, you get paid the dividend. So, assuming that you bought the shares in timely fashion, your holdings just lost value and are worth only $1000. What you do have is the promise that in a couple of days time, you will be paid $100 as the dividend, thus restoring the asset value back to what it was earlier. Now, if you had asked your broker to re-invest the dividend back into the same stock, then, assuming that the stock price did not change in the interim due to normal market fluctuations, you would get another 10 shares for that $100 dividend making the value of your investment $1100 again (110 shares at $10 each), exactly what it was before the dividend was paid. If you didn't choose to reinvest the dividend, you would still have the 100 shares (worth $1000) plus $100 cash. So, regardless of what other investors choose to do, your asset value does not change as a result of the dividend. What does change is your net worth because that dividend amount is taxable (regardless of whether you chose to reinvest or not) and so your (tax) liability just increased.\"" }, { "docid": "222942", "title": "", "text": "That is but ONE liability out of a dozen possibly affected. Which liabilities going up for some businesses is irrelevant. What is relevant is the cost analysis every company must do when setting up it's future plans and forecasts. If government uses a carrot or a stick to incentivize or deincentize certain behavior, guess what companies do? So if there is a liability above say 5,000 people and they've got 6,500 currently and if they shrank it to 4,999 to avoid paying xyz increase in this or that. Guess what they'll do? You can say, oh they're not paying their fair share, or think about the 99% but the bottomline is that some companies will go into survival mode if they get anymore squeezed. If this was a good business envionment, fine, but it's not. (and if it was fine they wouldn't need to pull increased taxes to hit revenue). Here's a great example of how increased burdens can lead to withdrawl of investment: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-11/hollande-robbed-of-growth-driver-as-companies-curb-investments.html There is also a direct correlation where taxes go up beyond a certain point and revenues go DOWN: http://i.imgur.com/BPUAi.jpg Fairness is all well and good, but more taxes and liabilities do not automatically mean more revenue. It is a disincentive to produce more when there are more burdens on you. You go into survival mode, you go into hibernation mode." }, { "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": "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": "420267", "title": "", "text": "Yes, absolutely. Consider Microsoft, Updated Jan. 17, 2003 11:59 p.m. ET Software giant Microsoft Corp., finally bowing to mounting pressure to return some of its huge cash hoard to investors, said it will begin paying a regular annual dividend to shareholders. From Wall Street Journal. Thus, for the years prior to 2003, the company didn't pay dividends but changed that. There can also be some special one-time dividends as Microsoft did the following year according to the Wall Street Journal: The $32 billion one-time dividend payment, which comes to $3 for each share of Microsoft stock, could be a measurable stimulus to the U.S. economy -- and is expected to arrive just in time for holiday shopping. Course companies can also reduce to stop dividends as well." }, { "docid": "414215", "title": "", "text": "\"From the Times A Reader Q.&A. on G.M.’s Bankruptcy Q. I own G.M. preferred shares. Should I be looking to sell them, or hold on? I bought them at $25 a share when they were issued in late 2001. — Karen, Manhattan A. When a company files for bankruptcy, its various stock and bondholders essentially get in line. The first investors to be repaid are secured debt holders, then senior bond investors, followed by subordinated debt holders. Preferred shareholders are next, and lastly, holders of common stock. In a bankruptcy, preferred shares are usually worthless, much like shares of common stock. But in the case of G.M., there may be some good — or at least somewhat better — news. Most of G.M.’s preferred shares are actually senior notes or “quarterly interest bonds,” which means you will be treated as a bondholder, according to Marilyn Cohen, president of Envision Capital Management. So you will be able to exchange your preferreds for G.M. stock (bondholders will receive 10 percent of the new company’s stock). It’s not the best deal, but it beats the empty bag true preferred shareholders would have been left holding. Of course this is just one example, and you were hoping to get some larger picture. The article stated \"\"In a bankruptcy, preferred shares are usually worthless, much like shares of common stock\"\" which at least is a bit closer to that, if you accept usually as a statistic.\"" }, { "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": "289120", "title": "", "text": "\"I held shares in BIND Therapeutics, a small biotechnology company on the NASDAQ that was liquidated on the chapter 11 auction block in 2016. There were sufficient proceeds to pay the debts and return some cash to shareholders, with payments in 2016 and 2017. (Some payments have yet to occur.) The whole process is counter-intuitive and full of landmines, both for tax preparation & planning and receiving payments: Landmine 0: Some shareholders will sell in a panic as soon as the chapter 11 is announced. This would have been a huge mistake in the case of BIND, because the eventual liquidation payments were worth 3 or so times as much as the share price after chapter 11. The amount of the liquidation payments wasn't immediately calculable, because the company's intellectual property had to be auctioned. Landmine 1: The large brokerages (Vanguard, Fidelity, TDA, and others) mischaracterized the distributions to shareholders on form 1099, distributed to both shareholders and the IRS. The bankruptcy trustee considered this to be their responsibility. According to the tax code and to the IRS website, the liquidation is taxed like a sale of stock, rather than a dividend. \"\"On the shareholder level, a complete liquidation can be thought of as a sale of all outstanding corporate stock held by the shareholders in exchange for all of the assets in that corporation. Like any sale of stock, the shareholder receives capital gain treatment on the difference between the amount received by the shareholder in the distribution and the cost or other basis of the stock.\"\" Mischaracterizing the distributions as dividends makes them wrongly ineligible to be wiped out by the enormous capital loss on the stock. Vanguard's error appeared on my own 1099, and the others were mentioned in an investor discussion on stocktwits. However, Geoffrey L Berman, the bankruptcy trustee stated on twitter that while the payments are NOT dividends, the 1099s were the brokers' responsibility. Landmine 2: Many shareholders will wrongly attempt to claim the capital loss for tax year 2016, or they may have failed to understand the law in time for proper tax planning for tax year 2016. It does not matter that the company's BINDQ shares were cancelled in 2016. According to the IRS website \"\"When a shareholder receives a series of distributions in liquidation, gain is recognized once all of the shareholder's stock basis is recovered. A loss, however, will not be recognized until the final distribution is received.\"\" In particular, shareholders who receive the 2017 payment will not be able to take a capital loss for tax year 2016 because the liquidation wasn't complete. Late discovery of this timing issue no doubt resulted in an end-of-year underestimation of 2016 overall capital gains for many, causing a failure to preemptively realize available capital losses elsewhere. I'm not going to carefully consider the following issues, which may or may not have some effect on the timing of the capital loss: Landmine 3: Surprisingly, it appears that some shareholders who sold their shares in 2016 still may not claim the capital loss for tax year 2016, because they will receive a liquidation distribution in 2017. Taken at face value, the IRS website's statement \"\"A loss, however, will not be recognized until the final distribution is received\"\" appears to apply to shareholders of record of August 30, 2016, who receive the payouts, even if they sold the shares after the record date. However, to know for sure it might be worth carefully parsing the relevant tax code and treasury regs. Landmine 4: Some shareholders are completely cut out of the bankruptcy distribution. The bankruptcy plan only provides distributions for shareholders of record Aug 30, 2016. Those who bought shares of BINDQ afterwards are out of luck. Landmine 5: According to the discussion on stocktwits, many shareholders have yet to receive or even learn of the existence of a form [more secure link showing brokers served here] required to accept 2017 payments. To add to confusion there is apparently ongoing legal wrangling over whether the trustee is able to require this form. Worse, shareholders report difficulty getting brokers' required cooperation in submitting this form. Landmine 6: Hopefully there are no more landmines. Boom. DISCLAIMER: I am not a tax professional. Consult the tax code/treasury regulations/IRS publications when preparing your taxes. They are more trustworthy than accountants, or at least more trustworthy than good ones.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "354136", "title": "", "text": "\"This answer is applicable to the US. Similar rules may hold in some other countries as well. The shares in an open-ended (non-exchange-traded) mutual fund are not traded on stock exchanges and the \"\"market\"\" does not determine the share price the way it does for shares in companies as brokers make offers to buy and sell stock shares. The price of one share of the mutual fund (usually called Net Asset Value (NAV) per share) is usually calculated at the close of business, and is, as the name implies, the net worth of all the shares in companies that the fund owns plus cash on hand etc divided by the number of mutual fund shares outstanding. The NAV per share of a mutual fund might or might not increase in anticipation of the distribution to occur, but the NAV per share very definitely falls on the day that the distribution is declared. If you choose to re-invest your distribution in the same fund, then you will own more shares at a lower NAV per share but the total value of your investment will not change at all. If you had 100 shares currently priced at $10 and the fund declares a distribution of $2 per share, you will be reinvesting $200 to buy more shares but the fund will be selling you additional shares at $8 per share (and of course, the 100 shares you hold will be priced at $8 per share too. So, you will have 100 previous shares worth only $800 now + 25 new shares worth $200 for a total of 125 shares at $8 = $1000 total investment, just as before. If you take the distribution in cash, then you still hold the 100 shares but they are worth only $800 now, and the fund will send you the $200 as cash. Either way, there is no change in your net worth. However, (assuming that the fund is is not in a tax-advantaged account), that $200 is taxable income to you regardless of whether you reinvest it or take it as cash. The fund will tell you what part of that $200 is dividend income (as well as what part is Qualified Dividend income), what part is short-term capital gains, and what part is long-term capital gains; you declare the income in the appropriate categories on your tax return, and are taxed accordingly. So, what advantage is there in re-investing? Well, your basis in those shares has increased and so if and when you sell the shares, you will owe less tax. If you had bought the original 100 shares at $10 and sell the 125 shares a few years later at $11 and collect $1375, you owe (long-term capital gains) tax on just $1375-$1200 =$175 (which can also be calculated as $1 gain on each of the original 100 shares = $100 plus $3 gain on the 25 new shares = $175). In the past, some people would forget the intermediate transactions and think that they had invested $1000 initially and gotten $1375 back for a gain of $375 and pay taxes on $375 instead. This is less likely to occur now since mutual funds are now required to report more information on the sale to the shareseller than they used to in the past. So, should you buy shares in a mutual fund right now? Most mutual fund companies publish preliminary estimates in November and December of what distributions each fund will be making by the end of the year. They also usually advise against purchasing new shares during this period because one ends up \"\"buying a dividend\"\". If, for example, you bought those 100 shares at $10 on the Friday after Thanksgiving and the fund distributes that $2 per share on December 15, you still have $1000 on December 15, but now owe taxes on $200 that you would not have had to pay if you had postponed buying those shares till after the distribution was paid. Nitpickers: for simplicity of exposition, I have not gone into the detailed chronology of when the fund goes ex-dividend, when the distribution is recorded, and when cash is paid out, etc., but merely treated all these events as happening simultaneously.\"" }, { "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": "531370", "title": "", "text": "\"These types of diagrams appear all throughout Kiyosaki's Rich Dad, Poor Dad book. The arrows in the diagrams represent cash flow. For example, the first two diagrams of this type in the book are: The idea being presented here is that an asset generates income, and a liability generates expenses. According to the book, rich people spend their money buying assets, while middle class people buy liabilities. The diagram you posted above does not appear in the edition of the book I have (Warner Books Edition, printed in 2000). However, the following similar diagram appears in the chapter titled \"\"The History of Taxes and the Power of Corporations\"\": The idea behind this diagram is to demonstrate what the author considers the tax advantages of a personal corporation: using a corporation to pay for certain expenses with pre-tax dollars. Here is a quote from this chapter: Employees earn and get taxed and they try to live on what is left. A corporation earns, spends everything it can, and is taxed on anything that is left. It's one of the biggest legal tax loopholes that the rich use. They're easy to set up and are not expensive if you own investments that are producing good cash flow. For example; by owning your own corporation - vacations are board meetings in Hawaii. Car payments, insurance, repairs are company expenses. Health club membership is a company expense. Most restaurant meals are partial expenses. And on and on - but do it legally with pre-tax dollars. This piece of advice, like so much of the book, may contain a small amount of truth, but is oversimplified and potentially dangerous if taken a face value. There are many examples, as JoeTaxpayer mentioned, of people who tried to deduct too many expenses and failed to make a business case for them that would satisfy the IRS.\"" }, { "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": "378889", "title": "", "text": "\"Often these types of trades fall into two different categories. An error by broker or exchange. Exchange clearing out part of their books incorrectly is an example. Most exchanges make firms reopen their positions for after market hours. There may have been an issue doing so or exchange could incorrectly cancel positions. I was in the direct feed industry for years and this was a big issue. At the same time the broker can issue a no limit buy on accident (or has software that is prospecting and said software has a bug or written poorly). unscrupulous parties looking to feign an upswing or downswing in market. Let's say you hold 500k shares in a stock that sells for $11. You could possibly buy 100 shares for $13. Trust me you will find a seller. Then you are hoping that people see that trade as a \"\"norm\"\" and trade from there, allowing you to rake in $1M for spending an extra $200 - NOTE this is not normal and an extreme example. This was so common in the early days of NASDAQ after hours that they discontinued using the after hours trades as part of historical information that they keep like daily/yearly high or closing price. The liquidity allows for manipulation. It isn't seen as much now since this has been done a million times but it does still happen.\"" }, { "docid": "320579", "title": "", "text": "\"I think you may have a significant misunderstanding here. You have been renting your property out for two years, now. There is no special \"\"roommate\"\" clause in the tax code; roommates are renters, and the rent they pay is rental income. (If they were roommates in a property you both rented from a third party, that would be different.) See publication 527, chapter 4 for more details on the subject (search on \"\"Renting Part of Property\"\"). You should be: You may also consider \"\"Not renting for profit\"\" section, which may be closer to what you're actually thinking - of changing from \"\"Renting not for profit\"\" to \"\"Renting for profit\"\". Not rented for profit means you can report on your 1040 as opposed to filing Schedule E, but it does mean you have to actually not make a profit (and remember, some of the money that goes to paying the mortgage is not deductible on this side of things since it's your property and you'll get that money back, presumably, when you sell it). If that is what you're asking about, it sounds like it's just a matter of money. Are you going to start making money? Or, are you going to start making enough significant upgrades/etc. to justify the tax deduction? You should consider the actual, specific numbers carefully, probably with the help of a CPA who is familiar with this sort of situation, and then make the decision that gives you the best outcome (keeping in mind that there may be long-term impacts of switching from not-for-profit to for-profit rental treatment).\"" }, { "docid": "484352", "title": "", "text": "\"11 / 111 / 11111 looks like the (old) tax number: it is used by the tax office to know who you are, it isn't good at all for the spanish company. It would even change when you move inside Germany. VAT IDs are not exclusive to GmbHs (but a GmbH always has one). As freelancers you can get at VAT ID but you don't always have to. The tax office offers a \"\"small business\"\" treatment (§ 19 UStG) for freelancers, kind of an opt-out for the VAT ID. As you do not have a VAT ID, this is probably your case. It means So what to do? If I were you, I'd write them that according to §19 UStG and the European Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, TITLE XII CHAPTER 1 \"\"Special scheme for small enterprises\"\" you were not assigned a VAT ID, and VAT is not applicable to your bill. The fact that VAT is not applicable in this case does not mean that they are allowed to refuse payment. I heard a rumour (but don't really know) that a number similar to the VAT ID is planned also for freelancers (Wirtschafts-IDNr.). You could go to your tax office and ask them about. Maybe that yields a number that satisfies spanish burocracy. AFAIK, you can go to your tax office and ask them to give you a real VAT number. But careful: that has the serious drawback that you have to do do an advance VAT estimate and pay that to the tax office at least quarterly (for bigger business monthly). And (AFAIK) you are not allowed to change back to the small business treatment for several years.\"" }, { "docid": "231677", "title": "", "text": "\"The only thing that makes a stock worthless is when the company goes out of business. Note that bankruptcy, by itself, does not mean the company is closing. It could successfully restructure its affairs and come out of bankruptcy with a better outlook. Being a small or unprofitable business may cause a company's to trade in the \"\"penny stock\"\" range, but there is still some value there. Since most dying companies will pass through the penny stock phase, you may be able to track down what you're looking for by finding companies who have been (or are about to be) delisted. Delisting is not death, it's just the point at which the company's shares no longer meet the qualifications to be traded on a particular exchange. If you find old stock certificates in your grandmother's sock drawer, they may be a treasure, or they may be worthless pieces of paper if the company changed its ownership and Grandma didn't know about it.\"" }, { "docid": "10634", "title": "", "text": "\"chapter 8 page 154: &gt;\"\"My point is that it's doubts and cynicism that keep most people poor and playing it safe...only a person's doubts keep them poor...'Cynics criticize and winners analyze' was one of [Rich Dad's] favorite mottos\"\" -from chapter 8 page 154 of Robert Kiyosaki's first print edition of *Rich Dad Poor Dad* The whole page is about abandoning cynicism and has nothing to do with that Glenn-Beck-style rant/editorial you've linked to.\"" }, { "docid": "591079", "title": "", "text": "Is it just -34*4.58= -$155.72 for CCC and -11*0.41= -$4.51 for DDD? Yes it needs to be recorded as negative because at some point in time, the investor will have to spend money to buy these shares [cover the short sell and return the borrowed shares]. Whether the investor made profit or loss will not be reflected as you are only reflecting the current share inventory." }, { "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": "145555", "title": "", "text": "Rules appear to be changing (21NOV2014) Aviva Plc. AV on NYSE pass thru fee is 0.02 cents per ADR but that equals 11% deduction from ADR dividend. For utility or insurance stock that is significant ongoing fee. Registrar in US is Citibank, could be specific to them. This is the first for me except some modest fees on indonesian ADR. Information very difficult to find. Buy and hold OZ investor." }, { "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": "205420", "title": "", "text": "Keep paying down the bills. Attack them by balance (lowest first) or by interest rate (highest first). Talk to a local chapter of the National Foundation for Credit Counseling to see if they have any ideas. Perhaps you are a candidate for bankruptcy or some other drastic measure if you have a steady living situation and steady employment. (I wouldn't know, but honestly if your score can't get much worse so there isn't much to lose) You are doing the best you can and because you care enough, you will do great and adjust going forward. As a dad myself, don't worry about paying for your kids school or showering them with entertainment. Of course they need some, but time with you and knowing you are always there and stable will mean much more than buying their books. The best gift you can give your kid is a future where they don't have to support you, which is sadly more common than we sometimes think." }, { "docid": "341293", "title": "", "text": "\"When they entered Bankruptcy they changed their stock symbol from AAMR to AAMRQ. The Q tells investors that the company i in Bankruptcy. This i what the SEC says about the Q: \"\"Q\"\" Added To Stock Ticker Symbol When a company is involved in bankruptcy proceedings, the letter \"\"Q\"\" is added to the end of the company's stock ticker symbol. In most cases, when a company emerges from bankruptcy, the reorganization plan will cancel the existing equity stock and the old shares will be worthless. Given that risk, before purchasing stock in a bankrupt company, investors should read the company's proposed plan of reorganization. For more information about the impact of bankruptcy proceedings on securities, please read our online publication, Corporate Bankruptcy. The risks are they never recover, or that the old shares have nothing to do with new company. Many investors don't understand this. Recently some uninformed investors(?) tried to get a jump on the Twitter IPO by purchasing share of what they thought was Twitter but was instead the bankrupt company Tweeter Home Entertainment. Shares of Tweeter Home Entertainment, a Boston-based consumer electronics chain that filed for bankruptcy in 2007, soared Friday in a case of mistaken identity on Wall Street. Apparently, some investors confused Tweeter, which trades under the symbol TWTRQ, with Twitter and piled into the penny stock. Tweeter, which trades over the counter, opened at 2 cents a share and jumped as much as 15 cents — or 1,800 percent — before regulators halted trading. Almost 15 million shares had changed hands at that point, while the average daily volume is closer to 150,000. Sometimes it does happen that the new company does give some value to the old investors, but more often then not the old investors are completely wiped out.\"" }, { "docid": "264726", "title": "", "text": "#####&amp;#009; ######&amp;#009; ####&amp;#009; Section 4. [**Legal affairs**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump#Legal_affairs) of article [**Donald Trump**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald%20Trump): [](#sfw) --- &gt;In March 1990, Trump threatened to sue [Janney Montgomery Scott](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janney_Montgomery_Scott), a [stock brokerage firm](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brokerage_firm), whose [analyst](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stock_analyst) had made negative comments on the financial prospects of Taj Mahal. The analyst refused to retract the statements, and was fired by his firm. Taj Mahal declared bankruptcy for the first time in November 1990. A [defamation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation) lawsuit by the analyst against Trump for $2 million was settled out of court. On November 2, 1992, the [Trump Plaza Hotel](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_Plaza_Hotel_and_Casino) filed a prepackaged [Chapter 11](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapter_11_bankruptcy) protection plan. Under the plan, Trump agreed to give up a 49 percent stake in the luxury hotel to [Citibank](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citibank) and five other lenders. In return Trump would receive more favorable terms on the remaining $550+ million owed to the lenders, and retain his position as chief executive, though he would not be paid and would not have a role in day-to-day operations. &gt; --- ^Interesting: [^Donald ^Trump ^\\(song)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_\\(song\\)) ^| [^Donald ^Trump, ^Jr.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump,_Jr.) ^| [^Donald ^J. ^Trump ^State ^Park](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_J._Trump_State_Park) ^Parent ^commenter ^can [^toggle ^NSFW](http://www.np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=autowikibot&amp;subject=AutoWikibot NSFW toggle&amp;message=%2Btoggle-nsfw+cjj6nl9) ^or[](#or) [^delete](http://www.np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=autowikibot&amp;subject=AutoWikibot Deletion&amp;message=%2Bdelete+cjj6nl9)^. ^Will ^also ^delete ^on ^comment ^score ^of ^-1 ^or ^less. ^| [^(FAQs)](http://www.np.reddit.com/r/autowikibot/wiki/index) ^| [^Mods](http://www.np.reddit.com/r/autowikibot/comments/1x013o/for_moderators_switches_commands_and_css/) ^| [^Magic ^Words](http://www.np.reddit.com/r/autowikibot/comments/1ux484/ask_wikibot/)" }, { "docid": "265159", "title": "", "text": "The HMRC website says: Stock dividends are treated as income by virtue of CTA10/S1049, and taxable as savings income under Chapter 5 of Part 4 of ITTOIA05 (sections 409 to 414). ITTOIA05 is the Income Tax (Trading and Other Income) Act 2005, and says: 409 Charge to tax on stock dividend income (1) Income tax is charged on stock dividend income. (2) In this Chapter “stock dividend income” means the income that is treated as arising under section 410. 411 Income charged (1) Tax is charged under this Chapter on the amount of stock dividend income treated for income tax purposes as arising in the tax year. (2) That amount is the cash equivalent of the share capital on the issue of which the stock dividend income arises (see section 412), grossed up by reference to the dividend ordinary rate for the tax year." }, { "docid": "261637", "title": "", "text": "I have read his book(s) as well and agree with his message of identifying poor financial patterns and correcting them. However, I don't recall the chapter about corporate bankruptcy strategies and defensive financial moves which make you impervious to lawsuits. Maybe I glossed over that part." }, { "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": "266323", "title": "", "text": "The main advantage of commodities to a largely stock and bond portfolio is diversification and the main disadvantages are investment complexity and low long-term returns. Let's start with the advantage. Major commodities indices and the single commodities tend to be uncorrelated to stocks and bonds and will in general be diversifying especially over short periods. This relationship can be complex though as Supply can be even more complicated (think weather) so diversification may or may not work in your favor over long periods. However, trading in commodities can be very complex and expensive. Futures need to be rolled forward to keep an investment going. You really, really don't want to accidentally take delivery of 40000 pounds of cattle. Also, you need to properly take into account roll premiums (carry) when choosing the closing date for a future. This can be made easier by using commodities index ETFs but they can also have issues with rolling and generally have higher fees than stock index ETFs. Most importantly, it is worth understanding that the long-term return from commodities should be by definition (roughly) the inflation rate. With stocks and bonds you expect to make more than inflation over the long term. This is why many large institutions talk about commodities in their portfolio they often actually mean either short term tactical/algorithmic trading or long term investments in stocks closely tied to commodities production or processing. The two disadvantages above are why commodities are not recommended for most individual investors." } ]

[ { "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": "380474", "title": "", "text": "GnuCash—Great for the meticulous who want to know every detail of their finances. Pros: Cons:" }, { "docid": "174784", "title": "", "text": "CrimsonX did a great job highlighting the primary pros and cons of HSAs, so I won't go into detail there. However, I did want to point out another pro - HSAs are (or can be) easy to manage. You said: Is this a better way to approach health care costs instead of itemizing health care expenses on yearly federal taxes? I'm not sure which company you are looking at establishing your HSA with, but with mine I have a debit card that I use when paying for medical care and then at the end of the year I get a 1099-SA that provides the amount of money spent on qualified purchases that calendar year. Yes, there are a few extra boxes I need to fill in for my 1040 come tax time, but I don't need to itemize my healthcare costs over the year. It really is pretty simple and straightforward. Also, one con that is worth noting is that you become much more sensitive to healthcare costs due to the high deductible healthcare plan an HSA requires. For example, in all the years we've had an HSA we've not yet met our deductible, which means we pay out of pocket for any non-routine doctor visits. (The health insurer pays 100% of routine visits, like my wife's annual, well-baby check ups for the little one, and so on.) So, when you're feeling really sick and think a doctor's visit would be warranted, you have to make a decision: After being faced with this decision a time or two you will start to envy those who have just a $20 copay! Of course, that's just an emotional con. Each year I run the numbers on how much we spent per year on out of pocket plus premiums and compare it to what it would cost in premiums for an HMO-type plan, and the HSA plan always comes ahead. (In part because we are a pretty healthy family and I work for myself so do not get to enjoy group discount rates.) But I thought it worth mentioning because there are certainly times when I know I need to see a doctor or specialist and I cringe because I know I am going to be slapped with a big bill in the not too distant future!" }, { "docid": "243837", "title": "", "text": "Situated in Indore, we are a renowned firm involved in rendering highly effective consultancy services for Commodity Trading and Equity Investments. In addition, Our wide spectrum of services , Commodity (MCX,NCDEX), Equity Investments, Free Trail MCX Bullion tips, commodity tips, free MCX tips, bullion tips, online commodity tips, free MCX calls, MCX Energy tips, Online Trading tips, Wealth earn tips and stock market. Complying with advanced rules and guidelines of the finance industry, these services are appreciated for accuracy in documentation, optimum profit returns, long term benefits and minimum risk." }, { "docid": "171253", "title": "", "text": "Intuit Quicken. Pros: Cons:" }, { "docid": "598807", "title": "", "text": "Pros: Cons: Before the housing bubble the conventional wisdom was to buy as much home as you could afford, thereby borrowing as much you can afford. Because variable rates lead to lower mortgages, they were preferred by many as you could buy more house. This of course lead to many people losing their home and many thousands of dollars. A bubble is not necessary to trigger a chain of events that can lead to loss of a home. If an interest only borrower is late on a payment, this often triggers a rate increase. Couple that with some other things that can happen negatively, and you are up $hit's creek. IMO it is not wise." }, { "docid": "280204", "title": "", "text": "Putting the money in a bank savings account is a reasonably safe investment. Anything other than that will come with additional risk of various kinds. (That's right; not even a bank account is completely free of risk. Neither is withdrawing cash and storing it somewhere yourself.) And I don't know which country you are from, but you will certainly have access to your country's government bonds and the likes. You may also have access to mutual funds which invest in other countries' government bonds (bond or money-market funds). The question you need to ask yourself really is twofold. One, for how long do you intend to keep the money invested? (Shorter term investing should involve lower risk.) Two, what amount of risk (specifically, price volatility) are you willing to accept? The answers to those questions will determine which asset class(es) are appropriate in your particular case. Beyond that, you need to make a personal call: which asset class(es) do you believe are likely to do better or less bad than others? Low risk usually comes at the price of a lower return. Higher return usually involves taking more risk (specifically price volatility in the investment vehicle) but more risk does not necessarily guarantee a higher return - you may also lose a large fraction of or even the entire capital amount. In extreme cases (leveraged investments) you might even lose more than the capital amount. Gold may be a component of a well-diversified portfolio but I certainly would not recommend putting all of one's money in it. (The same goes for any asset class; a portfolio composed exclusively of stocks is no more well-diversified than a portfolio composed exclusively of precious metals, or government bonds.) For some specifics about investing in precious metals, you may want to see Pros & cons of investing in gold vs. platinum?." }, { "docid": "256362", "title": "", "text": "The good debt/bad debt paradigm only applies if you are considering this as a pure investment situation and not factoring in: A house is something you live in and a car is something you use for transportation. These are not substitutes for each other! While you can live in your car in a pinch, you can't take your house to the shops. Looking at the car, I will simplify it to 3 options: You can now make a list of pros and cons for each one and decide the value you place on each of them. E.g. public transport will add 5h travel time per week @ $X per hour (how much you value your leisure time), an expensive car will make me feel good and I value that at $Y. For each option, put all the benefits together - this is the value of that option to you. Then put all of the costs together - this is what the option costs you. Then make a decision on which is the best value for you. Once you have decided which option is best for you then you can consider how you will fund it." }, { "docid": "379140", "title": "", "text": "Oil as a commodity or investing in oil companies as a stock? As a commodity, I'd recommend none. The article Commodities – They Have (Almost) No Place in Your Portfolio and The Case Against Commodities explain why commodities are not good investments." }, { "docid": "534471", "title": "", "text": "This sounds a lot like an Equity-indexed Annuity. They date from about 1996 (there is a bit of skepticism about them, as they are tricky to understand for the typical investor). For instance, an equity indexed annuity pays a portion of the gain in an index (like S&P 500) when the stock market rises, and guarantees you won't lose if it falls. In an arbitrage sense, it is roughly equivalent to buying a mixture of bonds and index (call) options. There are a lot of complicated 'tweaks' on these, such as annual ratchet/annual reset, interest caps, etc. There is quite a bit of debate about whether they are too good to be true, so I'd read a few articles with pros and cons before buying one. These are also commonly called FIA (Fixed indexed annuities)." }, { "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": "324273", "title": "", "text": "Excel Pros: Cons:" }, { "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": "590013", "title": "", "text": "This one is pretty interesting in light of this OP's article (bold emphasis mine): &gt;“Mediocre company” Former Employee in Park City, UT – **Reviewed Sep 1, 2010** &gt;Pros – Convenient location, employee covered parking, ski passes (sometimes), competitive pay. &gt;Cons – Corporate Management has no idea what's happening on the local level. **Owner of company sends emails to all employees with his political views, including who you should vote for during election season.** Health insurance premium is more expensive than I have ever paid elsewhere. &gt;**Advice to Senior Management – Keep your political opinions to yourself.** Trust your local GM's and managers." }, { "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": "488037", "title": "", "text": "Money Manager Ex PROS: CONS" }, { "docid": "363899", "title": "", "text": "The problem with commodities is that they don't produce income. With a stock or bond, even if you never sold it to anyone or it wasn't publicly traded, you know you can collect the money the company makes or collect interest. That's a quantifiable income from the security. By computing the present value of that income (cf. http://blog.ometer.com/2007/08/26/money-math/) you can have at least a rough sense of the value of the stock or bond investment. Commodities, on the other hand, eat income (insurance and storage). Their value comes from their practical uses e.g. in manufacturing (which eventually results in income for someone); and from psychological factors. The psychological factors are inherently unpredictable. Demand due to practical uses should keep up with inflation, since in principle the prices on whatever products you make from the commodity would keep up with inflation. But even here there's a danger, because it may be that over time some popular uses for a given commodity become obsolete. For example this commodity used to be a bigger deal than now, I guess: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankincense. The reverse is also possible, that new uses for a commodity drive up demand and prices. To the extent that metals such as silver and gold bounce around wildly (much more so than inflation), I find it hard to believe the bouncing is mostly due to changes in uses of the metals. It seems far more likely that it's due to psychological factors and momentum traders. To me this makes metals a speculative investment, and identifying a bubble in metals is even harder than identifying one in income-producing assets that can more easily be valued. To identify a bubble you have to figure out what will go on in the minds of a horde of other people, and when. It seems safest for individual investors to just assume commodities are always in a bubble and stay away. The one arguable reason to own commodities is to treat them as a random bouncing number, which may enhance returns (as long as you rebalance) even if on average commodities don't make money over inflation. This is what people are saying when they suggest owning a small slice of commodities as part of an asset allocation. If you do this you have to be careful not to expect to make money on the commodities themselves, i.e. they are just something to sell some of (rebalance out of) whenever they've happened to go up a lot." }, { "docid": "556936", "title": "", "text": "\"Over on Quantitative Finance Stack Exchange, I asked and answered a more technical and broader version of this question, Should the average investor hold commodities as part of a broadly diversified portfolio? In short, I believe the answer to your question is that gold is neither an investment nor a hedge against inflation. Although many studies claim that commodities (such as gold) do offer some diversification benefit, the most credible academic study I have seen to date, Should Investors Include Commodities in Their Portfolios After All? New Evidence, shows that a mean-variance investor would not want to allocate any of their portfolio to commodities (this would include gold, presumably). Nevertheless, many asset managers, such as PIMCO, offer funds that are marketed as \"\"real return\"\" or \"\"inflation-managed\"\" and include commodities (including gold) in their portfolios. PIMCO has also commissioned some research, Strategic Asset Allocation and Commodities, claiming that holding some commodities offers both diversification and inflation hedging benefits.\"" }, { "docid": "384626", "title": "", "text": "\"A Tweep friend asked me a similar question. In her case it was in the larger context of a marriage and house purchase. In reply I wrote a detail article Student Loans and Your First Mortgage. The loan payment easily fit between the generally accepted qualifying debt ratios, 28% for house/36 for all debt. If the loan payment has no effect on the mortgage one qualifies for, that's one thing, but taking say $20K to pay it off will impact the house you can buy. For a 20% down purchase, this multiplies up to $100k less house. Or worse, a lower down payment percent then requiring PMI. Clearly, I had a specific situation to address, which ultimately becomes part of the list for \"\"pay off student loan? Pro / Con\"\" Absent the scenario I offered, I'd line up debt, highest to lowest rate (tax adjusted of course) and hack away at it all. It's part of the big picture like any other debt, save for the cases where it can be cancelled. Personal finance is exactly that, personal. Advisors (the good ones) make their money by looking carefully at the big picture and not offering a cookie-cutter approach.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "568006", "title": "", "text": "Another disadvantage is the inability to value commodities in an accounting sense. In contrast with stocks, bonds and real estate, commodities don't generate cash flows and so any valuation methodology is by definition speculative. But as rhaskett notes, there are diversification advantages. The returns for gold, for instance, tend to exhibit low/negative correlation with the performance of stocks. The question is whether the diversification advantage, which is the primary reason to hold commodities in a multi-asset class portfolio through time, overcomes the disadvantages? The answer... maybe." } ]

[ { "docid": "191741", "title": "", "text": "You may also want to consider short term, low risk investments. Rolling Certificate of Deposits can be good for this. They don't grow like an Index Fund but there's 0 risk and they will grow faster than your bank. For my bank as an example today's rates on my Money Market is 0.10% APY while the lowest CD (90 days) is 0.20% APY with a 5 year going up to 0.90% APY. It's not substantial by any stretch but its secure and the money would just be sitting in my bank otherwise. For more information look at: What is CD laddering and what are its pros and cons?" }, { "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": "134764", "title": "", "text": "\"Given the current low interest rates - let's assume 4% - this might be a viable option for a lot of people. Let's also assume that your actual interest rate after figuring in tax considerations ends up at around 3%. I think I am being pretty fair with the numbers. Now every dollar that you save each month based on the savings and invest with a higher net return of greater than 3% will in fact be \"\"free money\"\". You are basically betting on your ability to invest over the 3%. Even if using a conservative historical rate of return on the market you should net far better than 3%. This money would be significant after 10 years. Let's say you earn an average of 8% on your money over the 10 years. Well you would have an extra $77K by doing interest only if you were paying on average of $500 a month towards interest on a conventional loan. That is a pretty average house in the US. Who doesn't want $77K (more than you would have compared to just principal). So after 10 years you have the same amount in principal plus $77k given that you take all of the saved money and invest it at the constraints above. I would suggest that people take interest only if they are willing to diligently put away the money as they had a conventional loan. Another scenario would be a wealthier home owner (that may be able to pay off house at any time) to reap the tax breaks and cheap money to invest. Pros: Cons: Sidenote: If people ask how viable is this. Well I have done this for 8 years. I have earned an extra 110K. I have smaller than $500 I put away each month since my house is about 30% owned but have earned almost 14% on average over the last 8 years. My money gets put into an e-trade account automatically each month from there I funnel it into different funds (diversified by sector and region). I literally spend a few minutes a month on this and I truly act like the money isn't there. What is also nice is that the bank will account for about half of this as being a liquid asset when I have to renegotiate another loan.\"" }, { "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": "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": "417457", "title": "", "text": "One possibility is to lock in gains by selling, where a selling price can attempt to be optimized by initiating a trailing stop loss order. You'll have to look at the pros and cons of that kind of order to see if it is right for you. Another possibility is to begin hedging with options contracts, if that security is optionable. Puts with the appropriate delta will cost over time against future gains in the stock's price, but will protect your wealth if the stock price falls from this high point. These possibilities depend on what your investment goals are. For instance, if you are buying no matter what price because you like the forward guidance of the company, then it changes your capital growth and preservation decisions." }, { "docid": "500769", "title": "", "text": "\"Pros for WHOM? Cons for WHOM? Whether the Federal Reserve is good or not really depends on WHO you are (i.e. where in the \"\"inflate/debase the money supply\"\" you are positioned, and how that affects your position in the debt/asset game). Because the impacts of just about everything the Fed (or any central bank or government/cartel manipulated \"\"fiat\"\" money supply) does... affect you significantly different depending on where you are in regards to those things.\"" }, { "docid": "590013", "title": "", "text": "This one is pretty interesting in light of this OP's article (bold emphasis mine): &gt;“Mediocre company” Former Employee in Park City, UT – **Reviewed Sep 1, 2010** &gt;Pros – Convenient location, employee covered parking, ski passes (sometimes), competitive pay. &gt;Cons – Corporate Management has no idea what's happening on the local level. **Owner of company sends emails to all employees with his political views, including who you should vote for during election season.** Health insurance premium is more expensive than I have ever paid elsewhere. &gt;**Advice to Senior Management – Keep your political opinions to yourself.** Trust your local GM's and managers." }, { "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": "180311", "title": "", "text": "I like You Need A Budget (YNAB) Pros: Cons:" }, { "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": "348614", "title": "", "text": "\"Setting a certain % of income for pension actually depends on person. \"\"Always pay yourself first\"\" This is the quote which I love the most and which I am currently following. If you are planning to do 8%, then why don't you stretch a little bit more to 10%. I suggest you to do monthly review. If you can stretch more, increase % a little more by challenging yourself. This is rewarding. For pension plan, there is SRS Supplementary Retirement Plan where foreigners can also set aside of their money. This is long term plan and you can enjoy tax relief too. The catch is you can only withdraw the money when you reach certain age. Otherwise, you have to pay tax again (certain %) once you decide to withdraw. Serveral banks in Singapore offers to open this account. I suggest to compare pro and cons. If you are planning to work in Singapore for quite long, you may wish to consider this. Useful links http://www.mof.gov.sg/MOF-For/Individuals/Supplementary-Retirement-Scheme-SRS https://blog.moneysmart.sg/budgeting/is-the-supplementary-retirement-scheme-a-waste-of-your-time-and-money/\"" }, { "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": "94408", "title": "", "text": "comments discuss investing in potato futures. Learn / ready about commodity trading or commodity futures. An investopedia article How To Invest In Commodities is a good start. There are quite a few commodities offered for normal trade or as futures. Potatos may not be offered on quite a few exchanges. Found some here Investing in commodities is fraught with quite a bit of risk, some like you have already pointed out. Of course you can't eat all and have to sell." }, { "docid": "315741", "title": "", "text": "It's not so much pros and cons as much as it is what are your savings goals? While it's best to start early to save money for retirement, you may have numerous short- to medium-term savings goals (school, down payment, etc). Here's a template you can consider. I would suggest that you open up an RRSP mutual fund or brokerage account and invest a certain amount that you feel free locking up for the next few decades and investing it in some sort of growth product (perhaps look at portfolios using the Couch Potato strategy). Then, also open up a TFSA mutual fund or brokerage account and use it to invest for medium-term goals (i.e. 5-10 years). Invest in products that will allow for some growth but with low chance of losing principle in that time frame. What I wouldn't do is open up a TFSA savings account and use it for day-to-day savings. The tax you save is negligible and you would need to keep track of deposits and withdrawals to ensure that you don't overcontribute for the tax year. Similarly, an RRSP savings account or GIC is far too conservative at your age, IMHO. Think of RRSP and TFSA as investment vehicles rather than accounts per se. Either type allows for you to invest in a vast array of products, including mutual funds, equities, some derivatives, gold, bonds, GICs, etc. To conclude, my view is to use RRSP to invest for conventional retirement goals, and use the TFSA to invest for medium-term and early retirement goals." }, { "docid": "144292", "title": "", "text": "Sorry, I didn't mean to knock your post. I do think you have valid points. I think it's great to see discussions on the pros and cons on the VC/Start-up world. My previous work experience was at a start-up that made it big (sold 90% to News Corp at $400mm valuation), but was funded by angel investors, so it was a different situation. I'm currently getting my MBA now so am looking at the space from both the VC perspective and the Start-up perspective. VCs can provide real value to start-ups, and they can also harm them. However, no one is forcing the start-ups to take VC money; most do because it provides a higher probability for a faster path to success. The investment doesn't come free obviously, as you pointed out. The hours are horrible and you lose significant control. In many situations founders are taken away from the main leadership role. That doesn't seem fair. However, if someone sold the voting shares of their company, they are opting in for that risk. The truth of the matter is that a lot of the people who are amazing at the ideas that birth the start-ups are horrible at the day-to-day management. Sometimes VCs step in and make the necessary changes to ensure the best chance at company profitability. Is it fair? Yes. Does it suck for the person ousted, absolutely. It's an oversimplification to say this is all bad or all good. It all depends on the situation. However, yes, there are VCs who are predatory and use their superior knowledge of how business, financing, and whatever else work to extract as much as they can from their portfolio companies. Yet there are also some who honestly love the industry and want to help companies grow. Your article's stance is good because it prompts a discussion. However, as I originally felt, it does not do it as effectively as it could in my opinion. That's awesome you got a ton of re-tweets, but as you say on your blog, it's about substance, not the glitter and rainbows. Edit: Voting brigades don't count as glitter and rainbows?" }, { "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": "102682", "title": "", "text": "\"Are most big US based financial institutions and banks in such a close relationship with USCIS (United States Citizenship And Immigration Services) so they can easily request the information about market traders? Yes. They must be in order to enforce the laws required by the sanctions. What online broker would you suggest that probably won't focus on that dual citizenship matter? \"\"Dual\"\" citizenship isn't actually relevant here. Nearly anyone in the world can invest in US banks except for those few countries that the US has imposed sanctions against. Since you are a citizen of one of those countries, you are ineligible to participate. The fact that you are also a US citizen isn't relevant in this case. I believe the reasoning behind this is that the US doesn't encourage dual citizenship: The U.S. Government does not encourage dual nationality. While recognizing the existence of dual nationality and permitting Americans to have other nationalities, the U.S. Government also recognizes the problems which it may cause. Claims of other countries upon U.S. dual-nationals often place them in situations where their obligations to one country are in conflict with the laws of the other. In addition, their dual nationality may hamper efforts of the U.S. Government to provide consular protection to them when they are abroad, especially when they are in the country of their second nationality. If I had to guess, I'd say the thinking there is that if you (and enough other people that are citizens of that country) want to participate in something in the US that sanctions forbid, you (collectively) could try to persuade that country's government to change its actions so that the sanctions are lifted. Alternatively, you could renounce your citizenship in the other country. Either of those actions would help further the cause that the US perceives to be correct. What it basically boils down to is that even though you are a US citizen, your rights can be limited due to having another citizenship in a country that is not favorable in the current political climate. Thus there are pros and cons to having dual citizenship.\"" }, { "docid": "384626", "title": "", "text": "\"A Tweep friend asked me a similar question. In her case it was in the larger context of a marriage and house purchase. In reply I wrote a detail article Student Loans and Your First Mortgage. The loan payment easily fit between the generally accepted qualifying debt ratios, 28% for house/36 for all debt. If the loan payment has no effect on the mortgage one qualifies for, that's one thing, but taking say $20K to pay it off will impact the house you can buy. For a 20% down purchase, this multiplies up to $100k less house. Or worse, a lower down payment percent then requiring PMI. Clearly, I had a specific situation to address, which ultimately becomes part of the list for \"\"pay off student loan? Pro / Con\"\" Absent the scenario I offered, I'd line up debt, highest to lowest rate (tax adjusted of course) and hack away at it all. It's part of the big picture like any other debt, save for the cases where it can be cancelled. Personal finance is exactly that, personal. Advisors (the good ones) make their money by looking carefully at the big picture and not offering a cookie-cutter approach.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "21311", "title": "", "text": "\"403b plans are used by school districts, colleges and universities, nonprofit hospitals, charitable foundations and the like for their employees while 401k plans are used by most everybody else. I would suspect that a school district etc can use a 401k plan instead of a 403b plan if it chooses to do so, but the reverse direction is most likely forbidden: a (for-profit) company cannot use a 403b plan. One difference between a 403b plan and a 401k plan is that the employer can choose to offer, and the employee can choose to purchase, stock in the company inside the 401k plan. This option obviously is not available to charities etc. which don't issue stock. Your comment that the 403b plan invests solely in (variable) annuities suggests that the plan administrator is an insurance company and that the employer is moving to more \"\"modern\"\" version that allows investments in mutual funds and the like. Forty years ago, my 403b plan was like that; the only investment choice was an annuity, but some time in the 1980s, the investment choices were broadened to include mutual funds (possibly because the 1986 Tax Reform Act changed the rules governing 403b plans). So, are you sure that your employer is changing from a 403b plan to a 401k plan, or is it just a change of 403b plan administrator from the insurance company to another administrator who offers investment choices other than an annuity? Note, of course, that insurance companies have changed their options too. For example, TIAA (the Teachers' Insurance and Annuity Association) which was the 403b plan administrator for many schools and colleges became TIAA/CREF (College Retirement Equities Fund) where the CREF mutual funds actually were pretty good investments.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "366307", "title": "", "text": "If they leave the extra funds in the account the IRS will consider it as employer match. They weren't funds from your paycheck, they were from the employers profits. Because they don't have a formal matching program the extra funds will still keep then under the max match. There is one other explanation that needs to be considered. If the last paycheck from 2011 was near the end of the year (the last Friday of 2011 was December 30th) the 401K funds from that final paycheck may not have been deposited into your 401K until early January 2012. If you count contributions when looking at your 401K statement it will look like one two many for 2012; but the IRS only cares when it was deducted from your paycheck, not when it was deposited into your account. The Department of Labor only requires they be deposited by the 15th of the following month." }, { "docid": "319975", "title": "", "text": "Both will grow at the same rate. If everything else was equal:fees, investment options, flavor (Roth or deductible); Then I would put the money into the 403B. Why? putting the money into the 403b directly from your paycheck during the year allows you to have all of the $5,500 available to make an end of the year contribution, or to put the money from your tax return into the IRA. While $4,800 is less than $5,500. it is close enough that If you realized late in the calendar year that you had an extra $1,000 you wanted to contribute to your retirement, there wouldn't be enough room left to contribute." }, { "docid": "336917", "title": "", "text": "\"It seems I can make contributions as employee-elective, employer match, or profit sharing; yet they all end up in the same 401k from my money since I'm both the employer and employee in this situation. Correct. What does this mean for my allowed limits for each of the 3 types of contributions? Are all 3 types deductible? \"\"Deductible\"\"? Nothing is deductible. First you need to calculate your \"\"compensation\"\". According to the IRS, it is this: compensation is your “earned income,” which is defined as net earnings from self-employment after deducting both: So assuming (numbers for example, not real numbers) your business netted $30, and $500 is the SE tax (half). You contributed $17.5 (max) for yourself. Your compensation is thus 30-17.5-0.5=12. Your business can contribute up to 25% of that on your behalf, i.e.: $4K. Total that you can contribute in such a scenario is $21.5K. Whatever is contributed to a regular 401k is deferred, i.e.: excluded from income for the current year and taxed when you withdraw it from 401k (not \"\"deducted\"\" - deferred).\"" }, { "docid": "510615", "title": "", "text": "Adding to justkt's answer. The big difference to you during the rollover is that moving the money to a Roth IRA, unless it was a Roth 401K, is going to require you pay a lot of taxes on the money you move. I'd suggest not doing that without guidance from a financial advisor." }, { "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": "66470", "title": "", "text": "Right you **don't** ever want to use that account for your traditional 401k rollovers. Realistically, you could *probably* still have it reclassified as a traditional IRA and roll your traditional 401ks into it, which was basically your original idea except none of the funds would be Roth; but if you see yourself ever potentially contributing to a Roth IRA going forward (which makes all the more sense if you have only traditional 401k funds in your retirement portfolio so far), there's nothing *wrong* with having both types of IRA at the same time. But no, don't cross the streams! :)" }, { "docid": "79153", "title": "", "text": "A 401k plan will ask you to name a beneficiary who will receive the funds if you don't withdraw them all before death. Usually, a primary beneficiary and a secondary beneficiary is requested. If you don't specify a beneficiary, your estate is the beneficiary by default. Note that the name supplied to the 401k plan is who will get the money, and you cannot change this by bequeathing the money in your will. For example, if you neglected to change the beneficiary upon divorce, it is useless to say in your will that the money in the 401k plan goes to your new wife; the 401k plan will give it to your ex-wife who still remains the beneficiary of your 401k Money in a 401k plan is what is called income with respect to a decedent (IRD) on which income tax is levied, and it is also is part of your estate and thus liable to be subject to estate tax. The latter is true even if the 401k plan assets are not mentioned anywhere in your will, and even if the assets got sent to your ex-wife which is not what you wanted to have happen. There are various estate tax exceptions for spouse beneficiaries (no estate tax due now, but will be charged when the spouse passes away). With regard to income tax, the beneficiaries of a 401k plan (similarly IRAs, 403b plans etc) generally get to take the whole amount and pay the income tax themselves. Edit in response to littleadv's comments: Each 401k plan is different, and some plans, especially the smaller ones, may prefer to distribute the 401k assets as a lump sum rather than allow the beneficiaries to withdraw the money over several years (and pay income tax on the amount withdrawn each year). This is because there are far too many rules and regulations to trip over when making withdrawals over several years. The lump sum distribution can be transferred into a newly established Inherited IRA (see the Nolo article linked to in @littleadv's answer for some details and some pitfalls to avoid) and the income tax is thus deferred until withdrawals occur. Spouse beneficiaries are entitled to more generous rules than non-spouse beneficiaries. If your heirs are otherwise well provided for and you are in a philanthropic mood (or you don't want to give 'em a dime, the ungrateful... who never call, not even on Father's Day!), one way of avoiding a lot of tax is to make the beneficiary of your 401k be one or more of your favorite charities. In fact, if your testamentary inclination is to make some charitable bequests as part of your will, it is much more advantageous to give money from a tax-deferred account to the charity (size of estate is reduced, no income tax paid by anyone on amount given), and bequeath assets in non-retirement accounts to one's heirs (bequests are not taxable income, and heirs get a step up in basis for assets that have appreciated) rather than the other way around (heirs pay income tax as they withdraw the money from tax-deferred account) Estate planning is a complicated business, and you really should talk to a professional about such matters and not rely on advice from an Internet forum." }, { "docid": "361037", "title": "", "text": "When you pick a company for your IRA, they should have information about rolling over funds from another IRA or a 401K. They will be able to walk you through the process. There shouldn't be a fee for doing this. They want your money to be invested in their funds. Once your money is in their hands they are able to generate their profits. You will want to do a direct transfer. Some employers will work with the investment companies and send the funds directly to the IRA. Others will insist on sending a check to you. The company that will have your IRA should give you exact specifications for the check so that you won't have to cash it. The check will be payable to you or the IRA account. The IRA company will have all the details. Decide if you will be converting non-Roth to Roth, before doing the rollover." }, { "docid": "338519", "title": "", "text": "Nobody here really answered your question. The custodian of the 401k determines what funds and investment options are available within that 401k. So if they're eliminating company stock as an option then they can absolutely make you sell out of it. You may be able to do an in service rollover and transfer your funds to an individual ira but that's not particularly common among 401k administrators. Aside from that I'd ask why do you want to hold company stock anyway? Generally I'd advise against this as its imposing a ton of risk on your financial future. If your company tanks you're out of a job, which sucks. But it sucks even more if your company tanks and your 401k loses a ton of value at the same time. Edit: I see you asked who benefits as well. It may just be a situation of no benefit at all. Perhaps the plan didn't have enough people investing in company stock to make the option cost effective. Maybe the administrator decided that allowing people to take on that amount of risk was not in their best interest(it's not). Could be a ton of reasons but it's unlikely the company did so out of greed. There isn't a lot of financial benefit for them there." }, { "docid": "187975", "title": "", "text": "There is no segregation of amounts that you have in Rollover (Traditional) IRAs when it comes to figuring out how much of your basis is being converted from your Traditional IRA into a Roth IRA. So, yes, you will lose the benefit of being able to make nondeductible contributions to your Traditional IRA each year and rolling them over into a Roth IRA without tax consequences. Since your 401k amount may be substantially more than the $5K basis you create each year, converting the 401k amount into a Traditional IRA will mean that most of the money converted to the Roth IRA is pre-tax money, and so you end up paying tax on most of the converted amount." }, { "docid": "517078", "title": "", "text": "\"Generally if you need to tap into your retirement for the house - you probably shouldn't buy the house. But that's your call. There are several things you could do. Sue your CPA \"\"friend\"\" for malpractice. Especially if there's any actual proof of that stupid suggestion. Check with your 401k administrator about home-purchase loan from the 401k. You'll be borrowing your own money, and repaying yourself back with interest, but it will be tax free and with no penalties. Keep in mind: if you cannot repay the loan, or you leave your employer without repaying it in full - the remaining balance will be considered withdrawal and you'll pay income taxes + 10% penalty on it. If you have an IRA, you can withdraw up to 10K without penalty if this is your first house (i.e.: you didn't own a house in the last 3 years), and is going to be your primary residence. You'll still pay taxes on the 10K. But, this is not available for 401k plans. You can request equal payments distribution calculated based on your life expectancy (This is the infamous 72(t)(2) distribution, even though many of the exceptions are in the IRC 72(t)(2). This in particular is 72(t)(2)(A)(iv)). Here's the full list of exceptions. Note that even if you're willing to pay the 10% penalty, many 401k plans do not allow distributions as long as you're still employed with the sponsoring employer. If you take a hardship distribution from your 401k (if it even allows it), you'll be prohibited from contributing for 6 months, and your employer will be prohibited from contributing on your behalf as well. I.e.: not only you take out your savings, you'll be barred from saving back. Also, in the same FAQ, it tells you that the hardship distribution can only include the amounts up to the original contributions (less whatever distributions already made), and not earnings or match. I.e.: it may actually be much less than the 40K you're counting on.\"" }, { "docid": "401450", "title": "", "text": "I would suggest you rollover your Roth 401k to a Roth IRA. Then pay off your debt before investing anymore money. In the long run you will be better off to have all your debt paid off. But I would not withdraw from the Roth 401k to pay down your debt. The penality is too steep." }, { "docid": "217310", "title": "", "text": "You'll want to roll the 401k over to a specifically designated rollover IRA. Rollover IRAs differ from an ordinary IRA account because they have NO contribution limit per year. Also Rolling over a 401k to a Roth IRA has consequences. There won't be a penalty but you will have to pay taxes on the amount being rolled over. The choice of Roth or Traditional IRA depends on your current tax situation as well as your expected taxes at retirement. Typically if you are in a low tax bracket and expect to be in a higher tax bracket at retirement a Roth IRA is suggested as withdrawals are tax free. With a rollover conversion you will have to evaluate whether paying taxes now outweighs the potential benefits of tax free withdrawals when you retire." }, { "docid": "88550", "title": "", "text": "I'd argue that you should be focusing on avoiding taxation and maximizing employer matching funds as your first objective. Over a longer period, quality of investment options and fees will both drive your account value. A personal IRA account is usually a better value over time -- so contribute as much as possible to your IRA, and rollover 401k accounts whenever you have an opportunity to do so." }, { "docid": "470267", "title": "", "text": "Direct roll-overs / trustee to trustee transfers are typically initiated by the receiving institution. Therefore you need to work with Vanguard. They will have a form in which you provide them with your fidelity account info and they will then contact Fidelity and initiate the transfer. Do not take the option of being sent a check made out to you by Fidelity (an indirect rollover). There are too many ways to muck up and get hit with penalties if you are the middleman in the process. I believe in most, if not all, cases the IRS now requires a 20% withholding on indirect 401k rollovers. This is because too many times people would initiate a roll over but not complete it either at all or within the allowed 60 day window and then come tax time be unable to pay the tax and penalty on the distribution. The tricky part of that withholding is that you still have to deposit that amount into the new account otherwise it becomes a distribution subject to tax and penalties (and that means coming up with the money from other accounts). So in summary talk to Vanguard and set up an institution to institution transfer. They souls make this very easy as they want your money. And do not do any kind of rollover where you come into personal possession of the money. If the check is made out to Vanguard but sent to you to resend to Vanguard that should not be an issue as that is still a trustee to trustee transfer. Fidelity may have a minor account closer fee that will be deducted from the value of the account before it is sent." }, { "docid": "411000", "title": "", "text": "\"You should call your plan administrator and ask. Few plans allow people to take a \"\"hardship withdraw\"\" after leaving because their is no way to pay the funds back since you are no longer working there. The repayment process is done via payroll deduction usually. Also you will most likely be required to withhold 20% for taxes from the 401k. There is no way to defer the taxation unless you take it next calendar year. You may want to consider doing a rollover into an IRA and taking the w/d and you can do a 60 day rollover. You only get 1 per rolling 12 months now (rather than account do to a change in the rule.) IRA's (not 401k) do give you flexible withholding so you don't have to pay taxes today though they would still be in the tax year based on the calendar date taken out, so if you take it out in 2015 your going to be paying them at the end of this year when you file in April of 2016. Your question seems to be mixing characteristics of both 401k and IRA and while they are similar they do operate very differently.\"" }, { "docid": "294644", "title": "", "text": "When I did this I sold the stock out of my 401k account. Then transferred the cash to my rollover IRA account. No tax event was created for me. Make sure your rollover IRA account is listed as tax deferred. If this still doesn't work for you then it could be a bug in Quicken and your best bet is the Quicken forums. Good luck." }, { "docid": "260075", "title": "", "text": "Take some of the commentary on home buying forums with a grain of salt. I too have read some of the commentary on these forums such as myFICO, Trulia, or Zillow and rarely is the right advice given or proper followup done. Typical 401k withdrawals for home purchase would not be considered a hardship. However, most employer 401k plans will allow you to take a loan for 401k as long as you provide suitable documentation: HUD-1 statement, Real Estate Contract, Good Faith Estimate, or some other form of suitable documentation as described by the plan administrator. For instance, I just took a 401k loan to pay for closing costs and I had to provide only the real estate contract. Could I not follow through with the contract? Sure, but what if I am found out for fraud? Then the plan administrator would probably end up turning the distribution into a taxable distribution. I wouldn't go to jail in this hypothetical situation - I am only stealing from myself. But the law states that certain loan situations are not liable for tax as long as that situation still exists. In the home loan situation, my employer allows for a low interest, 10 year loan. My employer also allows for a pre-approved loan for any purpose. This would be a low interest, 5 year loan. There is also the option to not do a loan at all. But normally that is only allowed after you have exhausted all your loan options and the government makes it intentionally harsh (30% penalty at least) to discourage people from dumping their tax free haven 401k accounts. That all being said, many plans offer no prepayment penalty. So like my employer has for us, I can pay it all back in full whenever I want or make micropayments every month. Otherwise, it comes out of my pay stub biweekly. So if it were to fall through, I could just put it all back like it never happened. Though with my plan, there is a cooling off period of 7 days before I can take another loan. Keep in mind that if you leave your employer then the full amount becomes a taxable distribution unless you pay it back within a certain period of time after leaving the employer. Whether this fits your financial situation is up to you, but a loan is definitely preferred over a partial or full withdrawal since you are paying yourself back for your rightly earned retirement which is just as important." }, { "docid": "181652", "title": "", "text": "If you have self-employment income you can open a Solo 401k. Your question is unclear as to what your employment status is. If you are self-employed as an independent contractor, you can open a Solo 401k. You can still do this even if you also earn non-self-employment income (i.e., you are an employee and receive a W-2). However, the limits for contributions to a Solo 401k are based on your self-mployment income, not your total income, so if you have only a small amount of self-employment income, you won't be able to contribute much to the Solo 401k. You may be able to reduce your taxes somewhat, but it's not like you can earn $1000 of self-employment income, open a Solo 401k, and dump $5000 into it; the limits don't work that way." } ]

[ { "docid": "538237", "title": "", "text": "\"GLD, IAU, and SGOL are three different ETF's that you can invest in if you want to invest in gold without physically owning gold. Purchasing an ETF is just like purchasing a stock, so you're fine on that front. Another alternative is to buy shares of companies that mine gold. An example of a single company is Randgold Resources (GOLD), and an ETF of mining companies is GDX. There are also some more complex alternatives like Exchange traded notes and futures contracts, but I wouldn't classify those for the \"\"regular person.\"\" Hope it helps!\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "339169", "title": "", "text": "It depends on what your goals are, your age, how much debt you have, etc. Assuming -- and we all know what happens when you assume -- that your financial life is otherwise in order, the 5% to 10% range you're talking about isn't overinvesting. You won't have a lot of company; most people don't own any. One comment on this part: I have some gold (GLD), but not much ... Gold and GLD are not the same thing at all. Owning shares of the SPDR Gold Trust is not the same thing as owning gold coins or bars. You're achieving different ends by owning GLD shares as opposed to the physical yellow metal. GLD will follow the spot price of gold pretty closely, but it isn't the same thing as physical ownership." }, { "docid": "525193", "title": "", "text": "\"Article summation: You may have enjoyed that 30% last year and 6% first half this year, but inflation is almost at 2% and we expect inflationary hedges and non-US-dollar investments to outperform. My response: Hahaha, what? Is he even looking at his own numbers? Since when did 2% inflation \"\"trump\"\" 6, 12, or 30% growth? He can't seriously be implying that people should run to gold...\"" }, { "docid": "584633", "title": "", "text": "It seems that you're interested in an asset which you can hold that would go up when the gold price went down. It seems like a good place to start would be an index fund, which invests in the general stock market. When the gold market falls, this would mainly affect gold mining companies. These do not make up a sizable portion of any index fund, which is invested broadly in the market. Unfortunately, in order to act on this, you would also have to believe that the stock market was a good investment. To test this theory, I looked at an ETF index fund which tracks the S&P 500, and compared it to an ETF which invests in gold. I found that the daily price movements of the stock market were positively correlated with the price of gold. This result was statistically significant. The weekly price movements of the stock market were also correlated with the price of gold. This result was also statistically significant. When the holding period was stretched to one month, there was still a positive relationship between the stock market's price moves and the price of gold. This result was not statistically significant. When the holding period was stretched to one year, there was a negative relationship between the price changes in the stock market and the price of gold. This result was not statistically significant, either." }, { "docid": "502203", "title": "", "text": "If you want a concrete investment tip, precious metals (e.g. gold, silver) are on a pretty good run these days, personally I still think they have ways to go as there are just too many problems with modern monetary policy of an almost existential nature, and gold and silver are better stores of value than fiat money. Silver is particularly hot right now, but keep in mind that the increased volatility means increased risk. If the Fed keeps its foot on the pedals of the dollar printing press and we get QE3 this summer, that will most likely mean more people piling into the PMs to hedge against inflation. If the Fed starts to tighten it's policy then that's probably bad news for both equities and bonds and so PMs could be seen as a safe haven investment. These are the main reasons why PMs take up a good portion of my portfolio and will continue to do so untill I see how the global economy plays out over the next couple of years." }, { "docid": "270979", "title": "", "text": "The whole point of buying puts is cheaper cost and lower downside risk. If you short the box, you are assuming he already holds gold holdings to short against. It's not the same as short selling where you borrow shares. Either way, you are far more vulnerable to downside risk if you are short the stock (whether you borrowed or shorted already owned shares). If Gold suddenly has a 20% pop over the next year, which could be possible given the volatility and uncertainty in the marketplace, you have big trouble. Whereas, if you buy puts, you only lose your costs for the contracts. The amount that you miss by in your bet isn't going to factor into anything." }, { "docid": "287837", "title": "", "text": "\"&gt;If you know that a company called Toyota with no access to any retained earnings... Okay, we are talking at cross-purposes here. I take it as axiomatic that speculative ventures by private actors is mostly a net good thing (e.g., grocery stores buying produce before the customer has handed over the gold, car-makers designing and building cars before they have been paid for end-to-end, etc...). Even if a lot of them fail, I take it as axiomatic that we would not have things like laptop computers and fresh oranges year-round and non-iron shirts without that kind of speculative investment. I also take it as axiomatic that such speculative investment could not/would not exist without privately- or publicly-issued promissory notes. E.g., I do not think anyone would ever have made the first laptop computer, if doing so required directly handing previously-acquired gold coins to everyone involved in the design and construction. A caveman with no money but infinite time could have built his own Macbook Pro with retina display: like everything else we have, it was dug up out of the ground by people no stronger than you or I. All the functionality is just ingenuity and machining, it's just stuff dug up and re-combined by people, not necessarily smarter than anyone else. The fact that it *has* been done by human beings, means, by definition, that it *can* be done by human beings. Ergo, a caveman could have done it. Could have placed a man on the moon, or built himself a 60\"\" 1080p TV, or an iPod, or a nuclear bomb, or a Ferrari, or sent a satellite past the solar-system, anything at all. We don't have anything that he didn't have: just ingenuity, and whatever we dig up out of the ground. But more realistically, the difference between us and cavemen is twofold: - We have a historical record, and the accumulated ingenuity of millions of individual insights; and, - We have an economy, based on credibility and promises, that allows things to be invented, tested, and made, before they are paid for. I suggest that it is axiomatic that, for example, iPads would not exist if physical gold had to change hands at every step of development and manufacturing before it could occur, or at the instance of occurance. There is just no sane scenario where a product like that comes into existence without promises and speculative investment and loan-guarantees. Same with fresh lettuce in winter, or plumbing or electricity or cable-TV. You can't just trade a grain of gold for every gallon of water that comes out of your shower in real-time to a wet bill-collector, or stick some gold in the cable-jack for every minute of internet. Someone is promising something, without having produced it yet. Whether you paid in advance, or they bill your the service later, value has changed hands on credit and promises. It's not a sane proposition that every transaction be a closed-loop, pay-as-you-go thing. Especially when you get into commercial transactions. The modern world would not exist without credit markets, and credit markets cannot exist without something like fractional reserve banking. Demanding that everyone instantly reconcile every value-exchange with a physical transfer of gold or some such is not a sane proposition. Would your cell-phone company pay someone to follow you around and collect grains of gold for every call? If so, would that person in turn be followed by the cell-tower owner, and so on? Offering to \"\"pay in advance\"\" doesn't negate the conundrum: they still have to provide service, which may or may not be covered by your gram of gold. It's still a credit market, no matter which way the faucet runs. And a credit market means, ipso-facto, that more money is in circulation than has been printed.\"" }, { "docid": "212157", "title": "", "text": "Without getting into whether you should invest in Gold or Not ... 1.Where do I go and make this purchase. I would like to get the best possible price. If you are talking about Physical Gold then Banks, Leading Jewelry store in your city. Other options are buying Gold Mutual Fund or ETF from leading fund houses. 2.How do I assure myself of quality. Is there some certificate of quality/purity? This is mostly on trust. Generally Banks and leading Jewelry stores will not sell of inferior purity. There are certain branded stores that give you certificate of authenticity 3.When I do choose to sell this commodity, when and where will I get the best cost? If you are talking about selling physical gold, Jewelry store is the only place. Banks do not buy back the gold they sold you. Jewelry stores will buy back any gold, however note there is a buy price and sell price. So if you buy 10 g and sell it back immediately you will not get the same price. If you have purchased Mutual Funds / ETF you can sell in the market." }, { "docid": "305346", "title": "", "text": "Since 2007 the world has seen a period of striking economic and financial volatility featuring the deepest recession since the 1930s despite this gold has performed strongly with its price roughly doubling since the global financial crisis began in mid-2007. 1. Gold and real interest rates: One of the factor that influences gold prices is real interest rate which is to some extent related to inflation. Since gold lacks a yield of its own, the opportunity cost of holding gold increases with a real interest rate increase and decreases with a fall in real interest rates. 2. Gold and the US dollar: The external value of the US dollar has been a significant influence on short-term gold price movements. The IMF estimated6 in 2008 that 40-50% of the moves in the gold price since 2002 were dollar-related, with a 1% change in the effective external value of the dollar leading to a more than 1% change in the gold price (Source). 3. Gold and financial stress: It is a significant and commonly observed influence on the short-term price of gold. In periods of financial stress gold demand may rise for a number of reasons: 4. Gold and political instability: It is another factor that can boost gold prices. Investor concerns about wars, civil conflicts and international tensions can boost demand for gold for similar reasons to those noted above for periods of financial stress. Gold‟s potential function as a „currency of last resort‟ in case of serious system collapse provides a particular incentive to hold it in case the political situation is especially severe. (Source) 5. Gold and official sector activity: The behaviour of central banks and other parts of the official sector can have an important impact on gold prices. One reason for this is that central banks are big holders of gold, possessing some 30,500 metric tons in 2010, which is approximately 15% of all above-ground gold stocks. As a result, central bank policies on gold sales and purchases can have significant effects, and these policies have been subject to considerable shifts over the decades. (Source) (Source of above graphs)" }, { "docid": "245616", "title": "", "text": "\"First off, the answer to your question is something EVERYONE would like to know. There are fund managers at Fidelity who will a pay $100 million fee to someone who can tell them a \"\"safe\"\" way to earn interest. The first thing to decide, is do you want to save money, or invest money. If you just want to save your money, you can keep it in cash, certificates of deposit or gold. Each has its advantages and disadvantages. For example, gold tends to hold its value over time and will always have value. Even if Russia invades Switzerland and the Swiss Franc becomes worthless, your gold will still be useful and spendable. As Alan Greenspan famously wrote long ago, \"\"Gold is always accepted.\"\" If you want to invest money and make it grow, yet still have the money \"\"fluent\"\" which I assume means liquid, your main option is a major equity, since those can be readily bought and sold. I know in your question you are reluctant to put your money at the \"\"mercy\"\" of one stock, but the criteria you have listed match up with an equity investment, so if you want to meet your goals, you are going to have to come to terms with your fears and buy a stock. Find a good blue chip stock that is in an industry with positive prospects. Stay away from stuff that is sexy or hyped. Focus on just one stock--that way you can research it to death. The better you understand what you are buying, the greater the chance of success. Zurich Financial Services is a very solid company right now in a nice, boring, highly profitable business. Might fit your needs perfectly. They were founded in 1872, one of the safest equities you will find. Nestle is another option. Roche is another. If you want something a little more risky consider Georg Fischer. Anyway, what I can tell you, is that your goals match up with a blue chip equity as the logical type of investment. Note on Diversification Many financial advisors will advise you to \"\"diversify\"\", for example, by investing in many stocks instead of just one, or even by buying funds that are invested in hundreds of stocks, or indexes that are invested in the whole market. I disagree with this philosophy. Would you go into a casino and divide your money, putting a small portion on each game? No, it is a bad idea because most of the games have poor returns. Yet, that is exactly what you do when you diversify. It is a false sense of safety. The proper thing to do is exactly what you would do if forced to bet in casino: find the game with the best return, get as good as you can at that game, and play just that one game. That is the proper and smart thing to do.\"" }, { "docid": "80156", "title": "", "text": "Gold's value starts with the fact that its supply is steady and by nature it's durable. In other words, the amount of gold traded each year (The Supply and Demand) is small relative to the existing total stock. This acting as a bit of a throttle on its value, as does the high cost of mining. Mines will have yields that control whether it's profitable to run them. A mine may have a $600/oz production cost, in which case it's clear they should run full speed now with gold at $1200, but if it were below $650 or so, it may not be worth it. It also has a history that goes back millennia, it's valued because it always was. John Maynard Keynes referred to gold as an archaic relic and I tend to agree. You are right, the topic is controversial. For short periods, gold will provide a decent hedge, but no better than other financial instruments. We are now in an odd time, where the stock market is generally flat to where it was 10 years ago, and both cash or most commodities were a better choice. Look at sufficiently long periods of time, and gold fails. In my history, I graduated college in 1984, and in the summer of 82 played in the commodities market. Gold peaked at $850 or so. Now it's $1200. 50% over 30 years is hardly a storehouse of value now, is it? Yet, I recall Aug 25, 1987 when the Dow peaked at 2750. No, I didn't call the top. But I did talk to a friend advising that I ignore the short term, at 25 with little invested, I only concerned myself with long term plans. The Dow crashed from there, but even today just over 18,000 the return has averaged 7.07% plus dividends. A lengthy tangent, but important to understand. A gold fan will be able to produce his own observation, citing that some percent of one's holding in gold, adjusted to maintain a balanced allocation would create more positive returns than I claim. For a large enough portfolio that's otherwise well diversified, this may be true, just not something I choose to invest in. Last - if you wish to buy gold, avoid the hard metal. GLD trades as 1/10 oz of gold and has a tiny commission as it trades like a stock. The buy/sell on a 1oz gold piece will cost you 4-6%. That's no way to invest. Update - 29 years after that lunch in 1987, the Dow was at 18448, a return of 6.78% CAGR plus dividends. Another 6 years since this question was asked and Gold hasn't moved, $1175, and 6 years' worth of fees, 2.4% if you buy the GLD ETF. From the '82 high of $850 to now (34 years), the return has a CAGR of .96%/yr or .56% after fees. To be fair, I picked a relative high, that $850. But I did the same choosing the pre-crash 2750 high on the Dow." }, { "docid": "357493", "title": "", "text": "\"This article fails to explain that paper gold doesn't \"\"necessarily\"\" guarantee the owner to physical gold. An index fund tracking the price of gold per ounce guarantees the owner the market value of gold at the termination of the contract. This keeps markets liquid, and allows investors to diversify into precious metals without the inconvenience of storage and delivery fees. As long as we are using currency that can be exchanged for gold this shouldn't pose a problem. If we move to a post currency world of barter and trade, you're better invested in weapons and ammunition.\"" }, { "docid": "153884", "title": "", "text": "I listen to the JRE frequently (also Schiff's podcast). Peter Schiff is a gold bug so he's going to have some biases there and against crypto. He does have some very interesting things to say and I like the guy (I'm very familiar with him), but at the end of the day, he's a salesman. BTW, I'm diversified into physical metals myself, hold as a hedge against the dollar. Crypto/cashless is where things are going, but I think that's still a ways off. It's way too volatile right now to be used as money, it's filled with speculators hoping to make some easy money. Governments will want to track every transaction so they can tax it. Plus, if you can't take your money out (i.e., cash), they can easily take rates negative, and negative rates are already a reality abroad." }, { "docid": "550440", "title": "", "text": "This is an excellent question; kudos for asking it. How much a person pays over spot with gold can be negotiated in person at a coin shop or in an individual transaction, though many shops will refuse to negotiate. You have to be a clever and tough negotiator to make this work and you won't have any success online. However, in researching your question, I dug for some information on one gold ETF OUNZ - which is physically backed by gold that you can redeem. It appears that you only pay the spot price if you redeem your shares for physical gold: But aren't those fees exorbitant? After all, redeeming for 50 ounces of Gold Eagles would result in a $3,000 fee on a $65,000 transaction. That's 4.6 percent! Actually, the fee simply reflects the convenience premium that gold coins command in the market. Here are the exchange fees compared with the premiums over spot charged by two major online gold retailers: Investors do pay an annual expense ratio, but the trade-off is that as an investor, you don't have to worry about a thief breaking in and stealing your gold." }, { "docid": "190772", "title": "", "text": "I think most financial planners or advisors would allocate zero to a gold-only fund. That's probably the mainstream view. Metals investments have a lot of issues, more elaboration here: What would be the signs of a bubble in silver? Also consider that metals (and commodities, despite a recent drop) are on a big run-up and lots of random people are saying they're the thing to get in on. Usually this is a sign that you might want to wait a bit or at least buy gradually. The more mainstream way to go might be a commodities fund or all-asset fund. Some funds you could look at (just examples, not recommendations) might include several PIMCO funds including their commodity real return and all-asset; Hussman Strategic Total Return; diversified commodities index ETFs; stuff like that has a lot of the theoretical benefits of gold but isn't as dependent on gold specifically. Another idea for you might be international bonds (or stocks), if you feel US currency in particular is at risk. Oh, and REITs often come up as an inflation-resistant asset class. I personally use diversified funds rather than gold specifically, fwiw, mostly for the same reason I'd buy a fund instead of individual stocks. 10%-ish is probably about right to put into this kind of stuff, depending on your overall portfolio and goals. Pure commodities should probably be less than funds with some bonds, stocks, or REITs, because in principle commodities only track inflation over time, they don't make money. The only way you make money on them is rebalancing out of them some when there's a run up and back in when they're down. So a portfolio with mostly commodities would suck long term. Some people feel gold's virtue is tangibility rather than being a piece of paper, in an apocalypse-ish scenario, but if making that argument I think you need physical gold in your basement, not an ETF. Plus I'd argue for guns, ammo, and food over gold in that scenario. :-)" }, { "docid": "528940", "title": "", "text": "If you want to buy physical gold, I would suggest pawn shops. Just have an idea of the price of gold and how to calculate value from carat weight. Also the type of gold affects resale value. I would buy the darker colored Indian or Thai gold. Thai Bot chains are probably the best." }, { "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": "309358", "title": "", "text": "\"The biggest risk you have when a country defaults on its currency is a major devaluation of the currency. Since the EURO is a fiat currency, like almost all developed nations, its \"\"promise\"\" comes from the expectation that its union and system will endure. The EURO is a basket of countries and as such could probably handle bailing out countries or possibly letting some default on their sovereign debt without killing the EURO itself. A similar reality happens in the United States with some level of regularity with state and municipal debt being considered riskier than Federal debt (it isn't uncommon for cities to default). The biggest reason the EURO will probably lose a LOT of value initially is if any nation defaults there isn't a track record as to how the EU member body will respond. Will some countries attempt to break out of the EU? If the member countries fracture then the EURO collapses rendering any and all EURO notes useless. It is that political stability that underlies the value of the EURO. If you are seriously concerned about the risk of a falling EURO and its long term stability then you'd do best buying a hedge currency or devising a basket of hedge currencies to diversify risk. Many will recommend you buy Gold or other precious metals, but I think the idea is silly at best. It is not only hard to buy precious metals at a \"\"fair\"\" value it is even harder to sell them at a fair value. Whatever currency you hold needs to be able to be used in transactions with ease. Doesn't do you any good having $20K in gold coins and no one willing to buy them (as the seller at the store will usually want currency and not gold coins). If you want to go the easy route you can follow the same line of reasoning Central Banks do. Buy USD and hold it. It is probably the world's safest currency to hold over a long period of time. Current US policy is inflationary so that won't help you gain value, but that depends on how the EU responds to a sovereign debt crisis; if one matures.\"" }, { "docid": "259440", "title": "", "text": "\"Overall, since gold has value in any currency (and is sort of the ultimate reserve currency), why would anyone want to currency hedge it? Because gold is (mostly) priced in USD. You currency hedge it to avoid currency risk and be exposed to only the price risk of Gold in USD. Hedging it doesn't mean \"\"less speculative\"\". It just means you won't take currency risk. EDIT: Responding to OP's questions in comment what happens if the USD drops in value versus other major currencies? Do you think that the gold price in USD would not be affected by this drop in dollar value? Use the ETF $GLD as a proxy of gold price in USD, the correlation between weekly returns of $GLD and US dollar index (measured by major world currencies) since the ETF's inception is around -47%. What this says is that gold may or may not be affected by USD movement. It's certainly not a one-way movement. There are times where both USD and gold rise and fall simultaneously. Isn't a drop in dollar value fundamentally currency risk? Per Investopedia, currency risk arises from the change in price of one currency in relation to another. In this context, it's referring to the EUR/USD movement. The bottom line is that, if gold price in dollar goes up 2%, this ETF gives the European investor a way to bring home that 2% (or as close to that as possible).\"" }, { "docid": "273282", "title": "", "text": "\"During the actual decline, there's very little money to be made and a lot to lose. When housing prices tank, everybody loses; the banks are exposed to higher risk of mortgage defaults, insurers start having to pay out more for \"\"gas leaks\"\" claiming over-leveraged homes, realtors starve because their commissions go down (even as foreclosures put more homes on the market) and people faced with financial uncertainty will stay put in their current homes instead of moving elsewhere. And homebuilders and contractors go broke because nobody wants to spend cash on a new home or major reno that looks like a losing investment. There can be some bright spots. Smaller hardware stores will make money as people do relatively small DIY projects to improve the condition of their current home. The larger stores get this business too, but it tends to be more than offset by the loss of contractor business (FAR more lucrative, and something the ACEs and True-Values don't really get in on). Of course the \"\"grave-robbers\"\" do well; gold buyers, auctioneers, pawn shops, repo firms; these guys eat well when other people are defaulting on loans or have to sell their stuff for fast cash. Most of these businesses are not publicly traded. One thing that was seen was increased revenues at discount retailers like Wal-Mart, Dollar General etc. When things are bad, people in the middle class who had avoided these stores for image or morality reasons learn to swallow their pride and buy discount store brands for half the price of national brand names. That lessens the blow felt by the discount retailers as overall consumer spending decreases; the pie shrinks, but the discount retailers get a bigger slice of the mandatory spending on food, clothing, etc (and the higher-level retailers get it in the shorts). When the pie starts to grow again as consumer spending picks back up, the discount retailers retain their percentage for a while, as the fickle middle class can afford to buy more from the discount retailer but can't yet afford to take their business back to the shopping mall stores. This produces a flatter, \"\"offset\"\" price graph for discount retailers through the business cycle; they don't lose as early or as much as everyone else in a major downturn, and they turn it around sooner while everyone else may still be on the way down, but as everything gets better for everyone on the upswing it's less great for the discount guys, as they start losing customers and their dollars to competitors with better stuff, even as the ones they keep spend more. This doesn't generally manifest as a true negative correlation, but it can be a good hedge. The number one money-making investment in a tanking economy is gold. When things go down the crapper, everyone wants gold, so if you see the train wreck coming far enough in advance, you can make a big move to gold and really make some money off that investment. For instance, when the first whispers about ARM adjustments and mass defaults reached the public consciousness in mid-2005, gold bullion jumped from about $400 to over $700 in a nine-month period. It cooled off again in 06-07 but only to about $600/oz, and then in late 07 it steadily climbed to peak at $1000/oz; even if you got in late, an investment of $1000 in July '07 in \"\"bulk\"\" gold would have netted you $650 in one year; that's a 65% APY. Then the economy hit bottom and a lot of investors ditched gold for investments they thought would pull back out of their holes quickly; For just a little while in '08 gold was down to $700 again. Then came all the government reports; unemployment not budging, home prices still declining, a lot of banks still hiding just how bad their position was. If you had seen that it was going to be bad, bad, bad, like a lot of now-billionaire hedge fund investors did, a $1000 investment in gold in July 05, and then cashing out at the tops of the peaks and buying back in at the major troughs, would be worth almost $4000 today. That's a 400% return over 7 years, or an annual average yield of 57%. There simply hasn't been anything like that in the last 7 years.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "35633", "title": "", "text": "Since GLD is priced as 1/10 oz of gold, I'd call it the preferred way to buy if that's your desire. I believe gold is entering classic bubble territory. Caveat emptor. A comment brought me back to this question. My answer still applies, the ETF the best way to buy gold at the lowest transaction cost. The day I posted and expressed my 'bubble' concern, gold was $1746. Today, nearly 5 years later, it's $1350, a drop of 23%, plus an additional 2% of accumulated expenses. Note, GLD has a .4% annual expense. On the other hand, the S&P is up 80% from that time. In other words, $10K invested that day would be worth less than $7,700 had it been invested in gold, and $18,000 in stock. It would take a market crash, gold soaring or some combination of the two for gold to have been the right choice then. No one can predict short term movement of either the market or metals, my answer here wasn't prescient, just lucky." } ]

[ { "docid": "487817", "title": "", "text": "Investing $100k into physical gold (bars or coins) is the most prudent option; given the state of economic turmoil worldwide. Take a look at the long term charts; they're pretty self explanatory. Gold has an upward trend for 100+ years. http://www.goldbuyguide.com/price/ A more high risk/high reward investment would be to buy $100k of physical silver. Silver has a similar track record and inherent benefits of gold. Yet, with a combination of factors that could make it even more bull than gold (ie- better liquidity, industrial demand). Beyond that, you may want to look at other commodities such as oil and agriculture. The point is, this is troubled times for worldwide economies. Times like this you want to invest in REAL things like commodities or companies that are actually producing essential materials." }, { "docid": "371390", "title": "", "text": "My personal gold/metals target is 5.0% of my retirement portfolio. Right now I'm underweight because of the run up in gold/metals prices. (I haven't been selling, but as I add to retirement accounts, I haven't been buying gold so it is going below the 5% mark.) I arrived at this number after reading a lot of different sample portfolio allocations, and some books. Some people recommend what I consider crazy allocations: 25-50% in gold. From what I could figure out in terms of modern portfolio theory, holding some metal reduces your overall risk because it generally has a low correlation to equity markets. The problem with gold is that it is a lousy investment. It doesn't produce any income, and only has costs (storage, insurance, commissions to buy/sell, management of ETF if that's what you're using, etc). The only thing going for it is that it can be a hedge during tough times. In this case, when you rebalance, your gold will be high, you'll sell it, and buy the stocks that are down. (In theory -- assuming you stick to disciplined rebalancing.) So for me, 5% seemed to be enough to shave off a little overall risk without wasting too much expense on a hedge. (I don't go over this, and like I said, now I'm underweighted.)" }, { "docid": "55422", "title": "", "text": "\"This is kind of halfway between the stuff I was talking about, and halfway to the stuff I don't want to get into. But it raises some very legitimate and relevant points that are kind of separate from the \"\"gold standard\"\" debate. The big question, taking the banks out of it, is a two-fold one, that goes something like this: - Is it possible to have a modern economy without credit-markets? and... - Is it possible to have functional credit-markets without some sort of fractional-reserve currency? For example, let's say Toyota decides to design a new car. Before they can sell a single unit, someone in Africa or somewhere has to dig up the minerals to make it, someone has to design it, tools have to be re-worked, all that kind of stuff. Building ONE CAR of a new design might cost [a billion dollars or more](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexus_LS). Obviously it's not realistic for Toyota to expect the first customer to pay that much: they amortize the design and tooling costs over the expected production run or whatever. Moreover, we might say that only companies that have amassed a billion dollars in physical gold from previous sales should be *able* to do that kind of thing... But there is a relevant question of whether this makes any kind of sense. Should Toyota have to literally ship palettes or dufflebags of physical gold through middlemen and suppliers to the miner in Africa, down to the actual guy who digs up the aluminum or whatever, in order to make this transaction happen? How would that work, without some sort of intermediary \"\"promises\"\"? I'm imagining a scenario where Toyota sends an armored truck full of gold out to go find half-a-ton of aluminum. The drivers cannot rely on any promises or \"\"fractional reserve\"\", they must only trade the physical gold in their truck for actual aluminum or expenses along the way... This starts to defy sanity, in a modern economy. You have to rely on the promises of middle-men and suppliers and contractors and so on. And the instant you have promises, you have fractional reserves, because people are getting paid and money is changing hands that hasn't been minted yet. It's not just the impracticality of your local supermarket having to trade a bag full of gold for a shipment of lettuce, it's that contracts to purchase would be meaningless, because the driver would have had to give a smaller bag of gold to the supplier, who gave a smaller bag of gold to the grower, and so on... moreover, the supermarket would have to just wait to see what entrepreneurial driver shows up and what they have. The supermarket obviously cannot \"\"order\"\" a hundred heads of lettuce per week with a promise to pay, not unless we also give the supplier permission to order a hundred heads of lettuce a week from the grower, and the grower permission to order seed and hire workers sufficient to grow a hundred heads of lettuce a week, and the workers permission to set up car-payments to get to work, and the seed-supplier to so on and so on... That sequence of promises is ipso-facto a \"\"fractional reserve\"\" system, with or without a central bank. People are promising to deliver gold/cash/whatever that they don't currently have. Moreover, it is entirely possible in a gold-denominated currency for everyone to *keep* those promises, since the gold, like any currency, just keeps changing hands and cycling through the economy. Your example of \"\"gold certificates\"\" is exactly equivalent to privately-arranged contracts/promises to produce a certain amount of gold on completion. It's promises all the way down, unless we insist on instant cash-transactions, e.g., literally handing an employee a dollar's worth of gold every five minutes, or whatever. If the employee is counting on the good-faith of the employer to settle up at the end of the day or week, then we have a fractional-reserve system whether decreed or not. When you buy an iPhone or a laptop, someone had to dig up the stuff to make it, out of the ground. When you buy a cheeseburger, someone had to grow wheat and someone else had to raise and kill a cow. It's not a reasonable proposition that they should wait for you to show up with a bag of gold before doing those things, in this day and age. We trade in promises and IOUs. Sometimes that backfires, sometimes catastrophically. But it's remarkable how well it *does* work, most of the time, and how much better it works than the times and places where people had to trade physical goods for physical goods. This is not an argument against a gold-backed currency.\"" }, { "docid": "287837", "title": "", "text": "\"&gt;If you know that a company called Toyota with no access to any retained earnings... Okay, we are talking at cross-purposes here. I take it as axiomatic that speculative ventures by private actors is mostly a net good thing (e.g., grocery stores buying produce before the customer has handed over the gold, car-makers designing and building cars before they have been paid for end-to-end, etc...). Even if a lot of them fail, I take it as axiomatic that we would not have things like laptop computers and fresh oranges year-round and non-iron shirts without that kind of speculative investment. I also take it as axiomatic that such speculative investment could not/would not exist without privately- or publicly-issued promissory notes. E.g., I do not think anyone would ever have made the first laptop computer, if doing so required directly handing previously-acquired gold coins to everyone involved in the design and construction. A caveman with no money but infinite time could have built his own Macbook Pro with retina display: like everything else we have, it was dug up out of the ground by people no stronger than you or I. All the functionality is just ingenuity and machining, it's just stuff dug up and re-combined by people, not necessarily smarter than anyone else. The fact that it *has* been done by human beings, means, by definition, that it *can* be done by human beings. Ergo, a caveman could have done it. Could have placed a man on the moon, or built himself a 60\"\" 1080p TV, or an iPod, or a nuclear bomb, or a Ferrari, or sent a satellite past the solar-system, anything at all. We don't have anything that he didn't have: just ingenuity, and whatever we dig up out of the ground. But more realistically, the difference between us and cavemen is twofold: - We have a historical record, and the accumulated ingenuity of millions of individual insights; and, - We have an economy, based on credibility and promises, that allows things to be invented, tested, and made, before they are paid for. I suggest that it is axiomatic that, for example, iPads would not exist if physical gold had to change hands at every step of development and manufacturing before it could occur, or at the instance of occurance. There is just no sane scenario where a product like that comes into existence without promises and speculative investment and loan-guarantees. Same with fresh lettuce in winter, or plumbing or electricity or cable-TV. You can't just trade a grain of gold for every gallon of water that comes out of your shower in real-time to a wet bill-collector, or stick some gold in the cable-jack for every minute of internet. Someone is promising something, without having produced it yet. Whether you paid in advance, or they bill your the service later, value has changed hands on credit and promises. It's not a sane proposition that every transaction be a closed-loop, pay-as-you-go thing. Especially when you get into commercial transactions. The modern world would not exist without credit markets, and credit markets cannot exist without something like fractional reserve banking. Demanding that everyone instantly reconcile every value-exchange with a physical transfer of gold or some such is not a sane proposition. Would your cell-phone company pay someone to follow you around and collect grains of gold for every call? If so, would that person in turn be followed by the cell-tower owner, and so on? Offering to \"\"pay in advance\"\" doesn't negate the conundrum: they still have to provide service, which may or may not be covered by your gram of gold. It's still a credit market, no matter which way the faucet runs. And a credit market means, ipso-facto, that more money is in circulation than has been printed.\"" }, { "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": "475539", "title": "", "text": "\"Nobody can give you a definitive answer. To those who suggest it's expensive at these prices, [I'd point to this chart](http://treo.typepad.com/.a/6a0120a6002285970c014e8c39f2c3970d-850wi) showing the price of gold versus the global money supply over the past decade or so. It's not conclusive, but it's evidence that gold tracks the money supply relatively well. There might be a bit of risk premium baked in that it would shed in a stable economy, but that premium is unknowable. It's also (imo) probably worth the protection it provides. In an inflationary scenario (Euro devaluation) gold will hold its buying power very well. It also fares well in a deflationary environment, just not quite as well as holding physical currency. Note that in such an environment, bank defaults are a big danger: that 50k might only be safe under your mattress (rather than in a fractionally reserved bank account). If you're buying gold, certificates aren't exactly a bad option, although there still exists the counterparty risk of the agent storing your gold, as well as political risk of the nation where it's being held. Buying physical bullion ameliorates these risks, but then you face the problem of protecting it. Safe deposit boxes, a home safe, or burying it in your backyard are all possible options. The merits of each, I'll leave as an exerice to the reader. Foreign currency might be a little bit better than the Euro, but as we've seen in the past year or so, the Swiss Franc has been devalued to match the Euro in the proverbial \"\"race to the bottom\"\". It's probably not much better than another fiat currency. I don't know anything about Norway. Edit: Depending on your time horizon, my personal opinion would be to put no less than 5-10% of your savings in a hard store of value (e.g. gold, silver, platinum). Depending on your risk appetite, you could probably stand to put a lot more into it, especially given the Eurozone turmoil. Of course, as with anything else, your mileage may vary, past performance does not guarantee future results, this is not investment advice, seek professional medical help if you experience an erection lasting longer than four hours.\"" }, { "docid": "145816", "title": "", "text": "I will just try to come up with a totally made up example, that should explain the dynamics of the hedge. Consider this (completely made up) relationship between USD, EUR and Gold: Now lets say you are a european wanting to by 20 grams of Gold with EUR. Equally lets say some american by 20 grams of Gold with USD. Their investment will have the following values: See how the europeans return is -15.0% while the american only has a -9.4% return? Now lets consider that the european are aware that his currency may be against him with this investment, so he decides to hedge his currency. He now enters a currency-swap contract with another person who has the opposite view, locking in his EUR/USD at t2 to be the same as at t0. He now goes ahead and buys gold in USD, knowing that he needs to convert it to EUR in the end - but he has fixed his interestrate, so that doesn't worry him. Now let's take a look at the investment: See how the european now suddenly has the same return as the American of -9.4% instead of -15.0% ? It is hard in real life to create a perfect hedge, therefore you will most often see that the are not totally the same, as per Victors answer - but they do come rather close." }, { "docid": "176414", "title": "", "text": "\"&gt;Actually the reason isn't because of the gold standard. The real reason is because we have seen a sharp increase in fruit imports over the past 5 decades. Huh? Agriculture is down to single digits as part of the GDP. What does that have to do with a gold standard and monetary policy? &gt;Productivity is up rather dramatically as compared to 40 years ago. Maybe you mean manufacturing? Productivity is up since say, the turn of the century but this is to be expected since we incorporated electricity, oil, automobiles and eventually computers. But as soon as the USA left the gold exchange standard, total factor productivity began to dramatically stagnate. That means the growth in productivity. You can see this best here: http://azizonomics.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/tfp.jpeg Think of productivity like GDP. It used to be 5 and was on its way to 6, but right as we went off the gold standard, productivity increases stagnated and by 2007 we're only at 5.5 instead of the expected 6. This uses a logarithmic function wherein 6 is 10x more than 5. So while productivity has not fallen in an absolute sense, growth in productivity which is more important than absolute GDP growth has fallen and is infact related to a decrease in productivity growth. &gt;The reason you're seeing the gains over the past several years shifting towards the rich is due to a combination of tax policy and a rise in cronyism caused by our campaign financing problems. Big businesses often have a lot of lobbying power to get laws passed that ultimately are felt by the rest of the economy. The reason it has shifted to the rich is because as the currency has debased the gains have gone towards the biggest companies, wealthiest individuals, assisted by government which works like an auction house to those with connections which is why lobbying ROI is huge. &gt;Fiat currency is a good thing for countries like the United States. We can safely finance and pay our debts for a few more years while wracking up debt without fear of hyperinflation. Because our massive debt is doing so well for us? In the beginning it looks nice because there is very little pain and is practically unnoticible, but as we see current events playing out in the US and to a greater extent Europe which isnt as tightly knit economically as the US, fiat currency has huge problems. Hyperinflation of commodities and deflation of assets are occuring before our eyes. House values are plummeting, medical/education/consumer goods are inflating. Not QUITE to the hyper part, but inflation is increasing and only when commodities such as oil see a deflation in demand as we see right now does inflation look under control. Shadow inflation is very much alive. If you have dollars in savings, the rates do not even outpace inflation, you are forced into riskier and risker investments to make a return. &gt;Now, there may be a lot to gripe about how the United States is currently spending its money, but it's established \"\"practical\"\" fact that government investment can spur growth, level out recessions, help people, etc. Established over what? the last 40 years? Thats hardly enough time to call practical fact when the gold standard existed for hundreds and thousands of years. Infact NO fiat currency that has ever existed has survived. That is the real fact, and the dollar and euro themselves are currently going through the end stages of this cancer. &gt;TL;DR The Gold Standard sucks, it has a lot of problems. Fiat Currency rocks for the USA because USA Fuck yeah! We are in a particular advantage where the real risks of fiat currency don't really apply to the USA **55 Million on food stamps with 20-30 million more on other forms of government assistance such as unemployment and welfare, unemployment increasing, GDP growth decreasing, median income decreasing, total employment stagnant (Same number of full time wage earners exist today as in 2000, despite 30+ million more American citizens), decreased consumer confidence, Average age of cars on the road went from 5 years in the 1960s to 12 years today (people dont buy new cars as frequently meaning less disposable income), decreased home ownership, increased retirement age, decreased young american employment.** **I am not sure why you think that the USA is in such a great position. The american dream is faultering if you're just starting out in life. Just ask any number of recent college grads who are increasingly living with parents, not getting married and can't find jobs.**\"" }, { "docid": "144987", "title": "", "text": "\"to answer the question in the title of your post... + convince your fellow Euro nations to accept austerity, + convince them to elect responsible governments, + demand transparency from your leaders, and... + make sure this never ever happens again. Alternatively, build a time machine and go back in time to either... + immigrate to another part of the world, + sabotage the corruption of the PIGS nations, + prevent the formation of a shared currency, or finally, + do something to ensure Germany didn't lose WWII, as letting them be in charge of everybody's money would appear to be a sound financial decision. That is how you negate the impact of the Euro collapsing. Now, on to the details of your question... I believe your initial assessment is correct. If one accountable nation were responsible for the solvency of its currency, it could be trusted indefinitely. As is the case with the Euro, as no one country is directly responsible for it, the less responsible governments are in a race to exploit it as much as possible. Remember, \"\"Spain no es Zimbabwe!\"\" I think Euro zone nations will be lucky if all that comes of this is the fall of the Euro. Wars between nations have been fought over less significant developments than what Greece, Italy and Spain have done to the financial stability of their Euro zone counterparts. Foreign gold trusts, possession of physical precious metals and precious metal ETFs (GLD is one stock ticker of such a fund, although I would look to a similar fund issued by a company with better physical gold audits) can hedge your currency risk. Check with local laws regarding physical possession of gold. In the USA when we left the gold standard for our currency, the government confiscated all privately owned precious metals and raided customer bank security boxes. Assess your own risk of that sort of thing happening.\"" }, { "docid": "337243", "title": "", "text": "\"Definitely look at CEF. They have tax advantages over GLD and SLV, and have been around for 50 years, and are a Canadian company. They hold their gold in 5 distributed vaults. Apparently tax advantage comes because with GLD, if you supposedly approach them with enough money, you can take out a \"\"bar of gold\"\". Just one problem (well, perhaps more): a bar of gold is an enormous sum of money (and as such not very liquid), and apparently gold bars have special certifications and tracking, which one would mess up if one took it to there personal collection, costing additional sums to re-certify. many, many articles on the web claiming that the gold GLD has is highly leveraged, is held by someone else, and tons of other things that makes GLD seem semi-dubious. I've used CEF for years, talked to them quite a few times; to me, and short of having it my possession, they seem the best /safest / easiest alternative, and are highly liquid/low spread betwen bid and ask. The do also have a pure gold \"\"stock\"\" and a pure silver \"\"stock\"\", but these often trade at higher premiums. CEF's premium varies between -2% and +4%. I.e. sometimes it trades at a premium to the gold and silver it holds, sometimes at a discount. Note that CEF generally shoots to have a 50/50 ratio of gold / silver holdings in their possession/vaults, but this ratio has increased to be heavier gold weighted than silver, as silver has not performed quite as well lately. You can go to their web-site and see exactly what they have, e.g. their NAV page: http://www.centralfund.com/Nav%20Form.htm\"" }, { "docid": "394791", "title": "", "text": "\"Platinum use is pretty heavily overweight in industrial areas; according to the linked Wikipedia article, 239 tonnes of platinum was sold in 2006, of which 130 tonnes went to vehicles emissions control devices and another 13.3 tonnes to electronics. Gold sees substantial use as an investment as well as to hedge against economical decline and inflation, with comparatively little industrial (\"\"real world\"\", as some put it) use. That is their principal difference from an investment point of view. According to Wikipedia's article on platinum, ... during periods of economic uncertainty, the price of platinum tends to decrease due to reduced industrial demand, falling below the price of gold. Gold prices are more stable in slow economic times, as gold is considered a safe haven and gold demand is not driven by industrial uses. If your investment scenario is a tanking world economy, for reason of its large industrial usage, I for one would not count on platinum to not fall in price. Of course gold may fall in price as well, but since it is not primarily an industrial use commodity, I would personally expect gold to do better in such a scenario.\"" }, { "docid": "259440", "title": "", "text": "\"Overall, since gold has value in any currency (and is sort of the ultimate reserve currency), why would anyone want to currency hedge it? Because gold is (mostly) priced in USD. You currency hedge it to avoid currency risk and be exposed to only the price risk of Gold in USD. Hedging it doesn't mean \"\"less speculative\"\". It just means you won't take currency risk. EDIT: Responding to OP's questions in comment what happens if the USD drops in value versus other major currencies? Do you think that the gold price in USD would not be affected by this drop in dollar value? Use the ETF $GLD as a proxy of gold price in USD, the correlation between weekly returns of $GLD and US dollar index (measured by major world currencies) since the ETF's inception is around -47%. What this says is that gold may or may not be affected by USD movement. It's certainly not a one-way movement. There are times where both USD and gold rise and fall simultaneously. Isn't a drop in dollar value fundamentally currency risk? Per Investopedia, currency risk arises from the change in price of one currency in relation to another. In this context, it's referring to the EUR/USD movement. The bottom line is that, if gold price in dollar goes up 2%, this ETF gives the European investor a way to bring home that 2% (or as close to that as possible).\"" }, { "docid": "326599", "title": "", "text": "Gold's valuation is so stratospheric right now that I wonder if negative numbers (as in, you should short it) are acceptable in the short run. In the long run I'd say the answer is zero. The problem with gold is that its only major fundamental value is for making jewelry and the vast majority is just being hoarded in ways that can only be justified by the Greater Fool Theory. In the long run gold shouldn't return more than inflation because a pile of gold creates no new wealth like the capital that stocks are a claim on and doesn't allow others to create new wealth like money lent via bonds. It's also not an important and increasingly scarce resource for wealth creation in the global economy like oil and other more useful commodities are. I've halfway-thought about taking a short position in gold, though I haven't taken any position, short or long, in gold for the following reasons: Straight up short-selling of a gold ETF is too risky for me, given its potential for unlimited losses. Some other short strategy like an inverse ETF or put options is also risky, though less so, and ties up a lot of capital. While I strongly believe such an investment would be profitable, I think the things that will likely rise when the flight-to-safety is over and gold comes back to Earth (mainly stocks, especially in the more beaten-down sectors of the economy) will be equally profitable with less risk than taking one of these positions in gold." }, { "docid": "289175", "title": "", "text": "If it gets bad enough that banks start failing, you probably will have a hard time accessing overseas accounts. That's real SHTF stuff. If so, lighters and toilet paper are probably the best investment you can make besides canned and dried food. Update: Complete breakdown of society is far more likely than the paranoid fantasy of Trump establishing an authoritarian government. The general population would rise up and you would find the civil unrest portion to be important. As for lighters and toilet paper, think about it for a minute. If you've got a case of food in cans but no way to heat them, would you trade a can for a lighter? Two cans? And toilet paper would be worth its weight in gold after about 2 months. If you really want to be a prepper, seeds, medicine, are all good things, but the really important thing to have is skills. Know how to hunt, clean an animal, tend a garden, clean and dress a wound. Having gold and diamonds would be a decent hedge for a fraction of your investments." }, { "docid": "538237", "title": "", "text": "\"GLD, IAU, and SGOL are three different ETF's that you can invest in if you want to invest in gold without physically owning gold. Purchasing an ETF is just like purchasing a stock, so you're fine on that front. Another alternative is to buy shares of companies that mine gold. An example of a single company is Randgold Resources (GOLD), and an ETF of mining companies is GDX. There are also some more complex alternatives like Exchange traded notes and futures contracts, but I wouldn't classify those for the \"\"regular person.\"\" Hope it helps!\"" }, { "docid": "212157", "title": "", "text": "Without getting into whether you should invest in Gold or Not ... 1.Where do I go and make this purchase. I would like to get the best possible price. If you are talking about Physical Gold then Banks, Leading Jewelry store in your city. Other options are buying Gold Mutual Fund or ETF from leading fund houses. 2.How do I assure myself of quality. Is there some certificate of quality/purity? This is mostly on trust. Generally Banks and leading Jewelry stores will not sell of inferior purity. There are certain branded stores that give you certificate of authenticity 3.When I do choose to sell this commodity, when and where will I get the best cost? If you are talking about selling physical gold, Jewelry store is the only place. Banks do not buy back the gold they sold you. Jewelry stores will buy back any gold, however note there is a buy price and sell price. So if you buy 10 g and sell it back immediately you will not get the same price. If you have purchased Mutual Funds / ETF you can sell in the market." }, { "docid": "542788", "title": "", "text": "\"Gold has very useful physical properties for some engineering applications. Even tiny amounts of gold can substantially improve products, so it can be worthwhile to pay high prices per ounce for gold. For example: Gold can be \"\"beaten\"\" or electroplated to produce very thin shiny coatings. Entire roofs (of famous buildings) have been covered with \"\"gold leaf\"\", at a cost that was small compared to the supporting structure. A very thin layer of electroplated gold provides better protection against corrosion than a much thicker layer of electroplated nickel. Even if gold costs thousands of times more per ounce than nickel, it is cheaper to use gold as an anti-corrosion layer than nickel (for use in military-grade naval electronics). A thin layer of electroplated gold greatly increases the electrical current-carrying capacity of a thin copper wire.\"" }, { "docid": "501456", "title": "", "text": "Gold is a good investment when central bank money printers can’t take their thumbs off the print button. Over the last 3 years the US Federal Reserve printed a ton of dollars to bail out banks and to purchase US federal debt. Maybe I should exchange my dollars for euros? The European Central Bank (ECB) is following the FED plan and printing money to buy Greek, Italian, and now Spanish bonds. This, indirectly, is a bailout of French and German banks. Maybe I should exchange my euros for yen? The Bank Of Japan (Japan’s central bank) is determined not to let the yen rise against other currencies so they too are printing money to keep the yen weak. Maybe I should exchange my yen for swiss francs? The Swiss National Bank (Switzerland’s central bank) is also determined not to let the franc rise against other currencies so they too are printing money. You quickly begin to realize that your options are dwindling for places to put your money where the government central bank isn’t working hard to dilute your savings. Physical gold is also a good investment for several other situations: What situations would lead to a drop in gold prices? What are the alternatives? Silver has traditionally been used more as money than gold. Silver is usually used for day-to-day purchases while gold is used for savings." }, { "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": "337243", "title": "", "text": "\"Definitely look at CEF. They have tax advantages over GLD and SLV, and have been around for 50 years, and are a Canadian company. They hold their gold in 5 distributed vaults. Apparently tax advantage comes because with GLD, if you supposedly approach them with enough money, you can take out a \"\"bar of gold\"\". Just one problem (well, perhaps more): a bar of gold is an enormous sum of money (and as such not very liquid), and apparently gold bars have special certifications and tracking, which one would mess up if one took it to there personal collection, costing additional sums to re-certify. many, many articles on the web claiming that the gold GLD has is highly leveraged, is held by someone else, and tons of other things that makes GLD seem semi-dubious. I've used CEF for years, talked to them quite a few times; to me, and short of having it my possession, they seem the best /safest / easiest alternative, and are highly liquid/low spread betwen bid and ask. The do also have a pure gold \"\"stock\"\" and a pure silver \"\"stock\"\", but these often trade at higher premiums. CEF's premium varies between -2% and +4%. I.e. sometimes it trades at a premium to the gold and silver it holds, sometimes at a discount. Note that CEF generally shoots to have a 50/50 ratio of gold / silver holdings in their possession/vaults, but this ratio has increased to be heavier gold weighted than silver, as silver has not performed quite as well lately. You can go to their web-site and see exactly what they have, e.g. their NAV page: http://www.centralfund.com/Nav%20Form.htm\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "259440", "title": "", "text": "\"Overall, since gold has value in any currency (and is sort of the ultimate reserve currency), why would anyone want to currency hedge it? Because gold is (mostly) priced in USD. You currency hedge it to avoid currency risk and be exposed to only the price risk of Gold in USD. Hedging it doesn't mean \"\"less speculative\"\". It just means you won't take currency risk. EDIT: Responding to OP's questions in comment what happens if the USD drops in value versus other major currencies? Do you think that the gold price in USD would not be affected by this drop in dollar value? Use the ETF $GLD as a proxy of gold price in USD, the correlation between weekly returns of $GLD and US dollar index (measured by major world currencies) since the ETF's inception is around -47%. What this says is that gold may or may not be affected by USD movement. It's certainly not a one-way movement. There are times where both USD and gold rise and fall simultaneously. Isn't a drop in dollar value fundamentally currency risk? Per Investopedia, currency risk arises from the change in price of one currency in relation to another. In this context, it's referring to the EUR/USD movement. The bottom line is that, if gold price in dollar goes up 2%, this ETF gives the European investor a way to bring home that 2% (or as close to that as possible).\"" }, { "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": "149988", "title": "", "text": "\"I've mostly seen this term peddled by those with large portfolios in gold/commodities. The incentive for these guys, who for example may have a large portfolio in gold, is to drive demand for gold up - which in turn drives the value of the gold they're holding up and makes their assets more valuable. The easiest way to get a large amount of people to invest in gold is to scare them into thinking the whole market is going to fall apart and that gold is their best/only option. I personally think that the path we're on is not particularly sustainable and that we're heading for a large correction/recession anyways - but for other reasons. **Example:** [Peter Shiff YouTube Channel called \"\"The Economist\"\" with conspiracy videos](https://www.youtube.com/user/PeterSchiffChannel/videos) [Actual \"\"The Economist\"\" magazine researching the market](https://www.youtube.com/user/EconomistMagazine/videos) (edit: formatting)\"" }, { "docid": "542788", "title": "", "text": "\"Gold has very useful physical properties for some engineering applications. Even tiny amounts of gold can substantially improve products, so it can be worthwhile to pay high prices per ounce for gold. For example: Gold can be \"\"beaten\"\" or electroplated to produce very thin shiny coatings. Entire roofs (of famous buildings) have been covered with \"\"gold leaf\"\", at a cost that was small compared to the supporting structure. A very thin layer of electroplated gold provides better protection against corrosion than a much thicker layer of electroplated nickel. Even if gold costs thousands of times more per ounce than nickel, it is cheaper to use gold as an anti-corrosion layer than nickel (for use in military-grade naval electronics). A thin layer of electroplated gold greatly increases the electrical current-carrying capacity of a thin copper wire.\"" }, { "docid": "474187", "title": "", "text": "Hyperinflation doesn't mean armaggedon. There have been hundreds of fiat currencies that have ended in hyperinflation i.e. wiemar republic (which the germans fully recovered from in less than 10 years before trying to take over europe). Most all pawn shops buy gold/silver, especially during hyperinflation will people be buying gold/silver. You can't have hyperinflation without demand of commodities going through the roof, that is the driver of inflation. When this happens you can be gauranteed people will buy your gold/silver. In the Wiemar republic, some people bought gold/silver for 1/10,000,000 what they sold it for. But they still lost 99% of their value because the mark still devalued another 1,000,000 times. Because of this, many people aren't even looking to sell it, until they absolutely need it's value. I.e. it's a piggy bank. The best way to deal with a gold/silver stash is to hide it, you can't steal what you can't find. There's a reason pirates are famous for burying their stuff, when they don't have the law on their side." }, { "docid": "42157", "title": "", "text": "No. Securities brokers/dealers in the United States are licensed to broker debt and equity in corporations. (There are additional, commodities licenses to broker derivatives.) $20 American Eagle coins, or any other type of physical currency or physical precious metals can be traded or brokered by anyone without a specific license (except maybe a sales tax registration). The only situation where a securities license would be required is if a legal entity is holding the coins and you deal/broker an interest in that legal entity. For example, dealing in SPDR Gold Shares or a similar structure holding either physical assets or the right to purchase those assets (like a commodity pool) would require a securities and/or commodities dealing license." }, { "docid": "528940", "title": "", "text": "If you want to buy physical gold, I would suggest pawn shops. Just have an idea of the price of gold and how to calculate value from carat weight. Also the type of gold affects resale value. I would buy the darker colored Indian or Thai gold. Thai Bot chains are probably the best." }, { "docid": "137444", "title": "", "text": "\"Why does the value of gold go up when gold itself doesn't produce anything? Why do people invest in gold? Your perception, that the value of gold goes up in the long run, is based on the price of gold measured in your favorite paper currency, for example the US Dollar. An increasing price of gold means that in the visible gold market, market participants are willing to exchange more paper currency units for the same amount of gold. There are many possible reasons for this: While HFT became extremely important for the short term price movements, I will continue with long term effects, excluding HFT. So when - as a simple thought experiment - the amount of available paper currency units (US $ or whatever) doubles, and the amount of goods and services in an economy stay the same, you can expect that the price of everything in this economy will double, including gold. You might perceive that the value of gold doubled. It did not. It stayed the same. The number of printed dollars doubled. The value of gold is still the same, its price doubled. Does the amount of paper currency units grow over time? Yes: https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/BASE/ In this answer my term \"\"paper currency units\"\" includes dollars that exist only as digits in bank accounts and \"\"printing currency\"\" includes creating those digits in bank accounts out of thin air. So the first answer: gold holds its value while the value of paper currency units shrinks over time. So gold enables you to pass wealth to the next generation (while hiding it from your government). That gold does not produce anything is not entirely true. For those of us mortals who have only a few ounces, it is true. But those who have tons can lease it out and earn interest. (in practice it is leased out multiple times, so multiple that gain. You might call this fraud, and rightfully so. But we are talking about tons of gold. Nobody who controls tons of physical gold goes to jail yet). Let's talk about Fear. You see, the perceived value of gold increases as more paper currency is printed. And markets price in expected future developments. So the value of gold rises, if a sufficient number of wealthy people fear the the government(s) will print too much paper currency. Second Answer: So the price of gold not only reflects the amount of paper currency, it is also a measurement of distrust in government(s). Now you might say something is wrong with my argument. The chart mentioned above shows that we have now (mid 2015) 5 times as much printed currency units than we had 2008. So the price of gold should be 5 times as high as 2008, assuming the amount of distrust in governments stayed the same. There must be more effects (or I might be completely wrong. You decide). But here is one more effect: As the price of gold is a measurement of distrust in governments (and especially the US government since the US Dollar is perceived as the reserve currency), the US government and associated organizations are extremely interested in low gold prices to prove trust. So people familiar with the topic believe that the price of gold (and silver) is massively manipulated to the downside using high frequency trading and shorts in the futures markets by US government and wall street banks to disprove distrust. And wall street banks gain huge amounts of paper currency units by manipulating the price, mostly to the downside. Others say that countries like china and russia are also interested in low gold prices because they want to buy as much physical gold as possible. Knowing of the value that is not reflected by the price at the moment. Is there one more source of distrust in governments? Yes. Since 1971, all paper currencies are debt. They receive their value by the trust that those with debt are willing and able to pay back their debt. If this trust is lost, the downward manipulation (if you think that such a thing exists) of the gold and silver prices in the futures markets might fail some day. If this is the case (some say when this is the case). you might see movements in gold and silver prices that bring them back to equilibrium with the amount of printed paper currencies. In times of the roman empire you got a good toga and a pair of handmade shoes for an ounce of gold. In our days, you get a nice suite and a good pair of shoes for an ounce of gold. In the mean time, the value of each paper currency in the history of each country went to zero and the US $ lost 98% of its initial value. As long as there is not enough distrust, more paper currency is made in equity markets and bond markets on average. (Be aware that you earn that currency only after you were able to sell at this price, not while you hold it) Gerd\"" }, { "docid": "55422", "title": "", "text": "\"This is kind of halfway between the stuff I was talking about, and halfway to the stuff I don't want to get into. But it raises some very legitimate and relevant points that are kind of separate from the \"\"gold standard\"\" debate. The big question, taking the banks out of it, is a two-fold one, that goes something like this: - Is it possible to have a modern economy without credit-markets? and... - Is it possible to have functional credit-markets without some sort of fractional-reserve currency? For example, let's say Toyota decides to design a new car. Before they can sell a single unit, someone in Africa or somewhere has to dig up the minerals to make it, someone has to design it, tools have to be re-worked, all that kind of stuff. Building ONE CAR of a new design might cost [a billion dollars or more](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexus_LS). Obviously it's not realistic for Toyota to expect the first customer to pay that much: they amortize the design and tooling costs over the expected production run or whatever. Moreover, we might say that only companies that have amassed a billion dollars in physical gold from previous sales should be *able* to do that kind of thing... But there is a relevant question of whether this makes any kind of sense. Should Toyota have to literally ship palettes or dufflebags of physical gold through middlemen and suppliers to the miner in Africa, down to the actual guy who digs up the aluminum or whatever, in order to make this transaction happen? How would that work, without some sort of intermediary \"\"promises\"\"? I'm imagining a scenario where Toyota sends an armored truck full of gold out to go find half-a-ton of aluminum. The drivers cannot rely on any promises or \"\"fractional reserve\"\", they must only trade the physical gold in their truck for actual aluminum or expenses along the way... This starts to defy sanity, in a modern economy. You have to rely on the promises of middle-men and suppliers and contractors and so on. And the instant you have promises, you have fractional reserves, because people are getting paid and money is changing hands that hasn't been minted yet. It's not just the impracticality of your local supermarket having to trade a bag full of gold for a shipment of lettuce, it's that contracts to purchase would be meaningless, because the driver would have had to give a smaller bag of gold to the supplier, who gave a smaller bag of gold to the grower, and so on... moreover, the supermarket would have to just wait to see what entrepreneurial driver shows up and what they have. The supermarket obviously cannot \"\"order\"\" a hundred heads of lettuce per week with a promise to pay, not unless we also give the supplier permission to order a hundred heads of lettuce a week from the grower, and the grower permission to order seed and hire workers sufficient to grow a hundred heads of lettuce a week, and the workers permission to set up car-payments to get to work, and the seed-supplier to so on and so on... That sequence of promises is ipso-facto a \"\"fractional reserve\"\" system, with or without a central bank. People are promising to deliver gold/cash/whatever that they don't currently have. Moreover, it is entirely possible in a gold-denominated currency for everyone to *keep* those promises, since the gold, like any currency, just keeps changing hands and cycling through the economy. Your example of \"\"gold certificates\"\" is exactly equivalent to privately-arranged contracts/promises to produce a certain amount of gold on completion. It's promises all the way down, unless we insist on instant cash-transactions, e.g., literally handing an employee a dollar's worth of gold every five minutes, or whatever. If the employee is counting on the good-faith of the employer to settle up at the end of the day or week, then we have a fractional-reserve system whether decreed or not. When you buy an iPhone or a laptop, someone had to dig up the stuff to make it, out of the ground. When you buy a cheeseburger, someone had to grow wheat and someone else had to raise and kill a cow. It's not a reasonable proposition that they should wait for you to show up with a bag of gold before doing those things, in this day and age. We trade in promises and IOUs. Sometimes that backfires, sometimes catastrophically. But it's remarkable how well it *does* work, most of the time, and how much better it works than the times and places where people had to trade physical goods for physical goods. This is not an argument against a gold-backed currency.\"" }, { "docid": "80156", "title": "", "text": "Gold's value starts with the fact that its supply is steady and by nature it's durable. In other words, the amount of gold traded each year (The Supply and Demand) is small relative to the existing total stock. This acting as a bit of a throttle on its value, as does the high cost of mining. Mines will have yields that control whether it's profitable to run them. A mine may have a $600/oz production cost, in which case it's clear they should run full speed now with gold at $1200, but if it were below $650 or so, it may not be worth it. It also has a history that goes back millennia, it's valued because it always was. John Maynard Keynes referred to gold as an archaic relic and I tend to agree. You are right, the topic is controversial. For short periods, gold will provide a decent hedge, but no better than other financial instruments. We are now in an odd time, where the stock market is generally flat to where it was 10 years ago, and both cash or most commodities were a better choice. Look at sufficiently long periods of time, and gold fails. In my history, I graduated college in 1984, and in the summer of 82 played in the commodities market. Gold peaked at $850 or so. Now it's $1200. 50% over 30 years is hardly a storehouse of value now, is it? Yet, I recall Aug 25, 1987 when the Dow peaked at 2750. No, I didn't call the top. But I did talk to a friend advising that I ignore the short term, at 25 with little invested, I only concerned myself with long term plans. The Dow crashed from there, but even today just over 18,000 the return has averaged 7.07% plus dividends. A lengthy tangent, but important to understand. A gold fan will be able to produce his own observation, citing that some percent of one's holding in gold, adjusted to maintain a balanced allocation would create more positive returns than I claim. For a large enough portfolio that's otherwise well diversified, this may be true, just not something I choose to invest in. Last - if you wish to buy gold, avoid the hard metal. GLD trades as 1/10 oz of gold and has a tiny commission as it trades like a stock. The buy/sell on a 1oz gold piece will cost you 4-6%. That's no way to invest. Update - 29 years after that lunch in 1987, the Dow was at 18448, a return of 6.78% CAGR plus dividends. Another 6 years since this question was asked and Gold hasn't moved, $1175, and 6 years' worth of fees, 2.4% if you buy the GLD ETF. From the '82 high of $850 to now (34 years), the return has a CAGR of .96%/yr or .56% after fees. To be fair, I picked a relative high, that $850. But I did the same choosing the pre-crash 2750 high on the Dow." }, { "docid": "309358", "title": "", "text": "\"The biggest risk you have when a country defaults on its currency is a major devaluation of the currency. Since the EURO is a fiat currency, like almost all developed nations, its \"\"promise\"\" comes from the expectation that its union and system will endure. The EURO is a basket of countries and as such could probably handle bailing out countries or possibly letting some default on their sovereign debt without killing the EURO itself. A similar reality happens in the United States with some level of regularity with state and municipal debt being considered riskier than Federal debt (it isn't uncommon for cities to default). The biggest reason the EURO will probably lose a LOT of value initially is if any nation defaults there isn't a track record as to how the EU member body will respond. Will some countries attempt to break out of the EU? If the member countries fracture then the EURO collapses rendering any and all EURO notes useless. It is that political stability that underlies the value of the EURO. If you are seriously concerned about the risk of a falling EURO and its long term stability then you'd do best buying a hedge currency or devising a basket of hedge currencies to diversify risk. Many will recommend you buy Gold or other precious metals, but I think the idea is silly at best. It is not only hard to buy precious metals at a \"\"fair\"\" value it is even harder to sell them at a fair value. Whatever currency you hold needs to be able to be used in transactions with ease. Doesn't do you any good having $20K in gold coins and no one willing to buy them (as the seller at the store will usually want currency and not gold coins). If you want to go the easy route you can follow the same line of reasoning Central Banks do. Buy USD and hold it. It is probably the world's safest currency to hold over a long period of time. Current US policy is inflationary so that won't help you gain value, but that depends on how the EU responds to a sovereign debt crisis; if one matures.\"" }, { "docid": "176414", "title": "", "text": "\"&gt;Actually the reason isn't because of the gold standard. The real reason is because we have seen a sharp increase in fruit imports over the past 5 decades. Huh? Agriculture is down to single digits as part of the GDP. What does that have to do with a gold standard and monetary policy? &gt;Productivity is up rather dramatically as compared to 40 years ago. Maybe you mean manufacturing? Productivity is up since say, the turn of the century but this is to be expected since we incorporated electricity, oil, automobiles and eventually computers. But as soon as the USA left the gold exchange standard, total factor productivity began to dramatically stagnate. That means the growth in productivity. You can see this best here: http://azizonomics.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/tfp.jpeg Think of productivity like GDP. It used to be 5 and was on its way to 6, but right as we went off the gold standard, productivity increases stagnated and by 2007 we're only at 5.5 instead of the expected 6. This uses a logarithmic function wherein 6 is 10x more than 5. So while productivity has not fallen in an absolute sense, growth in productivity which is more important than absolute GDP growth has fallen and is infact related to a decrease in productivity growth. &gt;The reason you're seeing the gains over the past several years shifting towards the rich is due to a combination of tax policy and a rise in cronyism caused by our campaign financing problems. Big businesses often have a lot of lobbying power to get laws passed that ultimately are felt by the rest of the economy. The reason it has shifted to the rich is because as the currency has debased the gains have gone towards the biggest companies, wealthiest individuals, assisted by government which works like an auction house to those with connections which is why lobbying ROI is huge. &gt;Fiat currency is a good thing for countries like the United States. We can safely finance and pay our debts for a few more years while wracking up debt without fear of hyperinflation. Because our massive debt is doing so well for us? In the beginning it looks nice because there is very little pain and is practically unnoticible, but as we see current events playing out in the US and to a greater extent Europe which isnt as tightly knit economically as the US, fiat currency has huge problems. Hyperinflation of commodities and deflation of assets are occuring before our eyes. House values are plummeting, medical/education/consumer goods are inflating. Not QUITE to the hyper part, but inflation is increasing and only when commodities such as oil see a deflation in demand as we see right now does inflation look under control. Shadow inflation is very much alive. If you have dollars in savings, the rates do not even outpace inflation, you are forced into riskier and risker investments to make a return. &gt;Now, there may be a lot to gripe about how the United States is currently spending its money, but it's established \"\"practical\"\" fact that government investment can spur growth, level out recessions, help people, etc. Established over what? the last 40 years? Thats hardly enough time to call practical fact when the gold standard existed for hundreds and thousands of years. Infact NO fiat currency that has ever existed has survived. That is the real fact, and the dollar and euro themselves are currently going through the end stages of this cancer. &gt;TL;DR The Gold Standard sucks, it has a lot of problems. Fiat Currency rocks for the USA because USA Fuck yeah! We are in a particular advantage where the real risks of fiat currency don't really apply to the USA **55 Million on food stamps with 20-30 million more on other forms of government assistance such as unemployment and welfare, unemployment increasing, GDP growth decreasing, median income decreasing, total employment stagnant (Same number of full time wage earners exist today as in 2000, despite 30+ million more American citizens), decreased consumer confidence, Average age of cars on the road went from 5 years in the 1960s to 12 years today (people dont buy new cars as frequently meaning less disposable income), decreased home ownership, increased retirement age, decreased young american employment.** **I am not sure why you think that the USA is in such a great position. The american dream is faultering if you're just starting out in life. Just ask any number of recent college grads who are increasingly living with parents, not getting married and can't find jobs.**\"" }, { "docid": "421268", "title": "", "text": "The best advice I can give you is to ignore gold right now. You really don't and can't have all the information you would need to support an argument for shorting gold. How much fiat cash have the central banks injected into the word economy? Billions? Trillions? Tens of Trillions? Maybe not much at all as the banks repay overnight? Anyway.. Without going on a full on rant why would you touch gold on a short? I can understand speculating on long position based on all the news out there but I'd hesitate to be a contraian in this market. Just find a nice little company that makes money, has a good product and a pretty little balance sheet. It will take longer to research but fuck if I'm betting on a huge drop in gold any time soon. What reasons do you have to believe gold is headed for any significant slide?" }, { "docid": "174002", "title": "", "text": "Gold is a commodity. It has a tracked price and can be bought and sold as such. In its physical form it represents something real of signifigant value that can be traded for currency or barted. A single pound of gold is worth about 27000 dollars. It is very valuable and it is easily transported as opposed to a car which loses value while you transport it. There are other metals that also hold value (Platinum, Silver, Copper, etc) as well as other commodities. Platinum has a higher Value to weight ratio than gold but there is less of a global quantity and the demand is not as high. A gold mine is an investement where you hope to take out more in gold than it cost to get it out. Just like any other business. High gold prices simply lower your break even point. TIPS protects you from inflation but does not protect you from devaluation. It also only pays the inflation rate recoginized by the Treasury. There are experts who believe that the fed has understated inflation. If these are correct then TIPS is not protecting its investors from inflation as promised. You can also think of treasury bonds as an investment in your government. Your return will be effectively determined by how they run their business of governing. If you believe that the government is doing the right things to help promote the economy then investing in their bonds will help them to be able to continue to do so. And if consumers buy the bonds then the treasury does not have to buy any more of its own." }, { "docid": "394791", "title": "", "text": "\"Platinum use is pretty heavily overweight in industrial areas; according to the linked Wikipedia article, 239 tonnes of platinum was sold in 2006, of which 130 tonnes went to vehicles emissions control devices and another 13.3 tonnes to electronics. Gold sees substantial use as an investment as well as to hedge against economical decline and inflation, with comparatively little industrial (\"\"real world\"\", as some put it) use. That is their principal difference from an investment point of view. According to Wikipedia's article on platinum, ... during periods of economic uncertainty, the price of platinum tends to decrease due to reduced industrial demand, falling below the price of gold. Gold prices are more stable in slow economic times, as gold is considered a safe haven and gold demand is not driven by industrial uses. If your investment scenario is a tanking world economy, for reason of its large industrial usage, I for one would not count on platinum to not fall in price. Of course gold may fall in price as well, but since it is not primarily an industrial use commodity, I would personally expect gold to do better in such a scenario.\"" }, { "docid": "270979", "title": "", "text": "The whole point of buying puts is cheaper cost and lower downside risk. If you short the box, you are assuming he already holds gold holdings to short against. It's not the same as short selling where you borrow shares. Either way, you are far more vulnerable to downside risk if you are short the stock (whether you borrowed or shorted already owned shares). If Gold suddenly has a 20% pop over the next year, which could be possible given the volatility and uncertainty in the marketplace, you have big trouble. Whereas, if you buy puts, you only lose your costs for the contracts. The amount that you miss by in your bet isn't going to factor into anything." }, { "docid": "61329", "title": "", "text": "By mentioning GLD, I presume therefore you are referring to the SPRD Gold Exchange Traded Fund that is intended to mirror the price of gold without you having to personally hold bullion, or even gold certificates. While how much is a distinctly personal choice, there are seemingly (at least) three camps of people in the investment world. First would be traditional bond/fixed income and equity people. Gold would play no direct role in their portfolio, other than perhaps holding gold company shares in some other vehicle, but they would not hold much gold directly. Secondly, at the mid-range would be someone like yourself, that believes that is in and of itself a worthy investment and makes it a non-trivial, but not-overriding part of their portfolio. Your 5-10% range seems to fit in well here. Lastly, and to my taste, over-the-top, are the gold-gold-gold investors, that seem to believe it is the panacea for all market woes. I always suspect that investment gurus that are pushing this, however, have large positions that they are trying to run up so they can unload. Given all this, I am not aware of any general rule about gold, but anything less than 10% would seem like at least a not over-concentration in the one area. Once any one holding gets much beyond that, you should really examine why you believe that it should represent such a large part of your holdings. Good Luck" }, { "docid": "380061", "title": "", "text": "\"A good time to invest in gold WAS about ten years ago, when it had reached a 20-year bottom around $300 an ounce. That's when I was buying (gold stocks, not physical gold). Since then, it's gone up 5-6 times in ten years. It might continue to go up of course, but it also has long way down to go, because it has come up \"\"too far, too fast.\"\" I have since sold my gold stocks. Alternatives to gold include other metals such as silver and copper (which actually belong in the same chemical family) as well as platinum and palladium. But they, too, have run up a lot in price over the past ten years.\"" }, { "docid": "305346", "title": "", "text": "Since 2007 the world has seen a period of striking economic and financial volatility featuring the deepest recession since the 1930s despite this gold has performed strongly with its price roughly doubling since the global financial crisis began in mid-2007. 1. Gold and real interest rates: One of the factor that influences gold prices is real interest rate which is to some extent related to inflation. Since gold lacks a yield of its own, the opportunity cost of holding gold increases with a real interest rate increase and decreases with a fall in real interest rates. 2. Gold and the US dollar: The external value of the US dollar has been a significant influence on short-term gold price movements. The IMF estimated6 in 2008 that 40-50% of the moves in the gold price since 2002 were dollar-related, with a 1% change in the effective external value of the dollar leading to a more than 1% change in the gold price (Source). 3. Gold and financial stress: It is a significant and commonly observed influence on the short-term price of gold. In periods of financial stress gold demand may rise for a number of reasons: 4. Gold and political instability: It is another factor that can boost gold prices. Investor concerns about wars, civil conflicts and international tensions can boost demand for gold for similar reasons to those noted above for periods of financial stress. Gold‟s potential function as a „currency of last resort‟ in case of serious system collapse provides a particular incentive to hold it in case the political situation is especially severe. (Source) 5. Gold and official sector activity: The behaviour of central banks and other parts of the official sector can have an important impact on gold prices. One reason for this is that central banks are big holders of gold, possessing some 30,500 metric tons in 2010, which is approximately 15% of all above-ground gold stocks. As a result, central bank policies on gold sales and purchases can have significant effects, and these policies have been subject to considerable shifts over the decades. (Source) (Source of above graphs)" } ]

[ { "docid": "35369", "title": "", "text": "\"Investing in gold without having physical gold is not really a hedge against inflation. GLD is really more for speculation, not protection against serious inflation. If there is any kind of inflation worth really protecting yourself against then one thing you will notice at its onset is a divergence in the price of physical and GLD; with GLD offering very little protection if any against inflation. Ultimately holders of GLD will demand physical metal and the physical price will rise and the paper price will fall. I would advise you to study physical gold before you purchase GLD for that reason. EDIT: Just adding this to my answer - I don't know why I didn't put it in before, and I hasten to add that I'm not an expert though a little investigation will show you that this is at least one option for owning gold. If you think of having the physical gold yourself at one end of the spectrum and buying GLD at the other; so that you don't need to take physical delivery, there is another scenario which I understand is in between (and sorry I don't actually know what it's referred to as) but it's where you buy the physical gold but instead of taking delivery the bars are stored for you in a vault - these bars are numbered and you actually own what you have paid for and theoretically you could go and visit your gold and actually remove it because it's your gold - as opposed to having paper GLD which in my understanding is a \"\"right to take physical delivery\"\" of gold - and this is slightly different - of course unlike GLD you actually have to pay a storage fee and of course unlike having the physical gold buried in your garden or something you are not entirely secure against say a robbery of the vault, and you are also depending on the company not to sell the same bar to more than one person - but that's the only think that their reputation is built on, and a company like that would live or die by the reputation - ( and of course you might lose the proverbial gold buried in the garden either, so nothing's 100% secure anyway really )\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "475539", "title": "", "text": "\"Nobody can give you a definitive answer. To those who suggest it's expensive at these prices, [I'd point to this chart](http://treo.typepad.com/.a/6a0120a6002285970c014e8c39f2c3970d-850wi) showing the price of gold versus the global money supply over the past decade or so. It's not conclusive, but it's evidence that gold tracks the money supply relatively well. There might be a bit of risk premium baked in that it would shed in a stable economy, but that premium is unknowable. It's also (imo) probably worth the protection it provides. In an inflationary scenario (Euro devaluation) gold will hold its buying power very well. It also fares well in a deflationary environment, just not quite as well as holding physical currency. Note that in such an environment, bank defaults are a big danger: that 50k might only be safe under your mattress (rather than in a fractionally reserved bank account). If you're buying gold, certificates aren't exactly a bad option, although there still exists the counterparty risk of the agent storing your gold, as well as political risk of the nation where it's being held. Buying physical bullion ameliorates these risks, but then you face the problem of protecting it. Safe deposit boxes, a home safe, or burying it in your backyard are all possible options. The merits of each, I'll leave as an exerice to the reader. Foreign currency might be a little bit better than the Euro, but as we've seen in the past year or so, the Swiss Franc has been devalued to match the Euro in the proverbial \"\"race to the bottom\"\". It's probably not much better than another fiat currency. I don't know anything about Norway. Edit: Depending on your time horizon, my personal opinion would be to put no less than 5-10% of your savings in a hard store of value (e.g. gold, silver, platinum). Depending on your risk appetite, you could probably stand to put a lot more into it, especially given the Eurozone turmoil. Of course, as with anything else, your mileage may vary, past performance does not guarantee future results, this is not investment advice, seek professional medical help if you experience an erection lasting longer than four hours.\"" }, { "docid": "443397", "title": "", "text": "You mean in response to OP? Investors should buy physical gold and silver, and wait out the storm. The US Bond market is negative when you factor in inflation, that's a bubble that's going to burst eventually. Riding the gold horse will keep you high and dry. But if you mean in response to Fearan? I would say that the way to reduce income inequality is to stop all the market distortions and malinvestment due to regulations. The countries with the most income disparity are the ones with the most regulations." }, { "docid": "176869", "title": "", "text": "\"Because people are willing to trade for it. People are willing to trade for Gold because: The value of gold goes up because the demand for it goes up, while the supply has been basically static (or growing at a low static rate) for a long time. The demand is going up because people see it as a safe place to put their money. Another reason Gold's value in dollars goes up, is because the value of the item it's traded against (dollars, euros, yen, etc) goes down, while its own value stays roughly the same. You point out Gold is not as liquid as cash, but gold (both traded on an exchange, and held physically) is easily sold. There is always someone willing to trade you cash for gold. Compare this to some of the bank stocks during the first part of our current recession. People were not willing to give much of anything for your shares. As the (annoying, misleading) advertisements say, \"\"Gold has never been worth zero\"\".\"" }, { "docid": "554018", "title": "", "text": "\"Well I disagree with the economists who claim Bitcoin can't (or wouldn't) be a currency. As far as I'm concerned, Bitcoin is the best-established digital \"\"unit of account\"\", and in the event of a Dollar/Euro crisis you are likely to see some entrepreneurs figure out ways to speed its adoption. I don't own any Bitcoin now, and I wouldn't put more than 15% of my total portfolio in it, simply because it's not possible to predict if something like that would catch on. But I own a ton of silver (about 20% of which is physical and the other 80% is via Sprott's ETF). I also don't own physical gold, but I own a lot of Swiss Francs, which in my view are a good proxy for gold and a safe haven given the fact Switzerland owns so much gold-per-capita. You get the benefits of gold AND a captive, skilled tax-livestock. Soros indicated recently he thinks the Euro won't last much longer than a few months. I'm always amazed by how the elite can push things off, though. So I hold about 50% of my savings as cash USD. In the event of market turmoil (you'll know it when you see it, like 2008) you can use this to scoop up some cheap stocks and gold/silver coins. Don't beat yourself up over missing opportunities, though. The main thing is just to steer clear of government bonds and the stock market. If you do that, you're going to come out in the top 20% over the next few years.\"" }, { "docid": "80156", "title": "", "text": "Gold's value starts with the fact that its supply is steady and by nature it's durable. In other words, the amount of gold traded each year (The Supply and Demand) is small relative to the existing total stock. This acting as a bit of a throttle on its value, as does the high cost of mining. Mines will have yields that control whether it's profitable to run them. A mine may have a $600/oz production cost, in which case it's clear they should run full speed now with gold at $1200, but if it were below $650 or so, it may not be worth it. It also has a history that goes back millennia, it's valued because it always was. John Maynard Keynes referred to gold as an archaic relic and I tend to agree. You are right, the topic is controversial. For short periods, gold will provide a decent hedge, but no better than other financial instruments. We are now in an odd time, where the stock market is generally flat to where it was 10 years ago, and both cash or most commodities were a better choice. Look at sufficiently long periods of time, and gold fails. In my history, I graduated college in 1984, and in the summer of 82 played in the commodities market. Gold peaked at $850 or so. Now it's $1200. 50% over 30 years is hardly a storehouse of value now, is it? Yet, I recall Aug 25, 1987 when the Dow peaked at 2750. No, I didn't call the top. But I did talk to a friend advising that I ignore the short term, at 25 with little invested, I only concerned myself with long term plans. The Dow crashed from there, but even today just over 18,000 the return has averaged 7.07% plus dividends. A lengthy tangent, but important to understand. A gold fan will be able to produce his own observation, citing that some percent of one's holding in gold, adjusted to maintain a balanced allocation would create more positive returns than I claim. For a large enough portfolio that's otherwise well diversified, this may be true, just not something I choose to invest in. Last - if you wish to buy gold, avoid the hard metal. GLD trades as 1/10 oz of gold and has a tiny commission as it trades like a stock. The buy/sell on a 1oz gold piece will cost you 4-6%. That's no way to invest. Update - 29 years after that lunch in 1987, the Dow was at 18448, a return of 6.78% CAGR plus dividends. Another 6 years since this question was asked and Gold hasn't moved, $1175, and 6 years' worth of fees, 2.4% if you buy the GLD ETF. From the '82 high of $850 to now (34 years), the return has a CAGR of .96%/yr or .56% after fees. To be fair, I picked a relative high, that $850. But I did the same choosing the pre-crash 2750 high on the Dow." }, { "docid": "212157", "title": "", "text": "Without getting into whether you should invest in Gold or Not ... 1.Where do I go and make this purchase. I would like to get the best possible price. If you are talking about Physical Gold then Banks, Leading Jewelry store in your city. Other options are buying Gold Mutual Fund or ETF from leading fund houses. 2.How do I assure myself of quality. Is there some certificate of quality/purity? This is mostly on trust. Generally Banks and leading Jewelry stores will not sell of inferior purity. There are certain branded stores that give you certificate of authenticity 3.When I do choose to sell this commodity, when and where will I get the best cost? If you are talking about selling physical gold, Jewelry store is the only place. Banks do not buy back the gold they sold you. Jewelry stores will buy back any gold, however note there is a buy price and sell price. So if you buy 10 g and sell it back immediately you will not get the same price. If you have purchased Mutual Funds / ETF you can sell in the market." }, { "docid": "137444", "title": "", "text": "\"Why does the value of gold go up when gold itself doesn't produce anything? Why do people invest in gold? Your perception, that the value of gold goes up in the long run, is based on the price of gold measured in your favorite paper currency, for example the US Dollar. An increasing price of gold means that in the visible gold market, market participants are willing to exchange more paper currency units for the same amount of gold. There are many possible reasons for this: While HFT became extremely important for the short term price movements, I will continue with long term effects, excluding HFT. So when - as a simple thought experiment - the amount of available paper currency units (US $ or whatever) doubles, and the amount of goods and services in an economy stay the same, you can expect that the price of everything in this economy will double, including gold. You might perceive that the value of gold doubled. It did not. It stayed the same. The number of printed dollars doubled. The value of gold is still the same, its price doubled. Does the amount of paper currency units grow over time? Yes: https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/BASE/ In this answer my term \"\"paper currency units\"\" includes dollars that exist only as digits in bank accounts and \"\"printing currency\"\" includes creating those digits in bank accounts out of thin air. So the first answer: gold holds its value while the value of paper currency units shrinks over time. So gold enables you to pass wealth to the next generation (while hiding it from your government). That gold does not produce anything is not entirely true. For those of us mortals who have only a few ounces, it is true. But those who have tons can lease it out and earn interest. (in practice it is leased out multiple times, so multiple that gain. You might call this fraud, and rightfully so. But we are talking about tons of gold. Nobody who controls tons of physical gold goes to jail yet). Let's talk about Fear. You see, the perceived value of gold increases as more paper currency is printed. And markets price in expected future developments. So the value of gold rises, if a sufficient number of wealthy people fear the the government(s) will print too much paper currency. Second Answer: So the price of gold not only reflects the amount of paper currency, it is also a measurement of distrust in government(s). Now you might say something is wrong with my argument. The chart mentioned above shows that we have now (mid 2015) 5 times as much printed currency units than we had 2008. So the price of gold should be 5 times as high as 2008, assuming the amount of distrust in governments stayed the same. There must be more effects (or I might be completely wrong. You decide). But here is one more effect: As the price of gold is a measurement of distrust in governments (and especially the US government since the US Dollar is perceived as the reserve currency), the US government and associated organizations are extremely interested in low gold prices to prove trust. So people familiar with the topic believe that the price of gold (and silver) is massively manipulated to the downside using high frequency trading and shorts in the futures markets by US government and wall street banks to disprove distrust. And wall street banks gain huge amounts of paper currency units by manipulating the price, mostly to the downside. Others say that countries like china and russia are also interested in low gold prices because they want to buy as much physical gold as possible. Knowing of the value that is not reflected by the price at the moment. Is there one more source of distrust in governments? Yes. Since 1971, all paper currencies are debt. They receive their value by the trust that those with debt are willing and able to pay back their debt. If this trust is lost, the downward manipulation (if you think that such a thing exists) of the gold and silver prices in the futures markets might fail some day. If this is the case (some say when this is the case). you might see movements in gold and silver prices that bring them back to equilibrium with the amount of printed paper currencies. In times of the roman empire you got a good toga and a pair of handmade shoes for an ounce of gold. In our days, you get a nice suite and a good pair of shoes for an ounce of gold. In the mean time, the value of each paper currency in the history of each country went to zero and the US $ lost 98% of its initial value. As long as there is not enough distrust, more paper currency is made in equity markets and bond markets on average. (Be aware that you earn that currency only after you were able to sell at this price, not while you hold it) Gerd\"" }, { "docid": "326858", "title": "", "text": "\"There are gold index funds. I'm not sure what you mean by \"\"real gold\"\". If you mean you want to buy physical gold, you don't need to. The gold index funds will track the price of gold and will keep you from filling your basement up with gold bars. Gold index funds will buy gold and then issue shares for the gold they hold. You can then buy and sell these just like you would buy and sell any share. GLD and IAU are the ticker symbols of some of these funds. I think it is also worth pointing out that historically gold has a been a poor investment.\"" }, { "docid": "235322", "title": "", "text": "Best thing to do is convert your money into something that will retain value. Currency is a symbol of wealth, and can be significantly devalued with inflation. Something such as Gold or Silver might not allow you to see huge benefit, but its perhaps the safest bet (gold in particular, as silver is more volatile), as mentioned above, yes you do pay a little above spot price and receive a little below spot when and if you sell, but current projections for both gold and silver suggest that you won't lose money at least. Safe bet. Suggesting it is a bad idea at this time is just silly, and goes against the majority of advisers out there." }, { "docid": "474187", "title": "", "text": "Hyperinflation doesn't mean armaggedon. There have been hundreds of fiat currencies that have ended in hyperinflation i.e. wiemar republic (which the germans fully recovered from in less than 10 years before trying to take over europe). Most all pawn shops buy gold/silver, especially during hyperinflation will people be buying gold/silver. You can't have hyperinflation without demand of commodities going through the roof, that is the driver of inflation. When this happens you can be gauranteed people will buy your gold/silver. In the Wiemar republic, some people bought gold/silver for 1/10,000,000 what they sold it for. But they still lost 99% of their value because the mark still devalued another 1,000,000 times. Because of this, many people aren't even looking to sell it, until they absolutely need it's value. I.e. it's a piggy bank. The best way to deal with a gold/silver stash is to hide it, you can't steal what you can't find. There's a reason pirates are famous for burying their stuff, when they don't have the law on their side." }, { "docid": "156672", "title": "", "text": "From Wikipedia: Investment has different meanings in finance and economics. In Finance investment is putting money into something with the expectation of gain, that upon thorough analysis, has a high degree of security for the principal amount, as well as security of return, within an expected period of time. In contrast putting money into something with an expectation of gain without thorough analysis, without security of principal, and without security of return is speculation or gambling. The second part of the question can be addressed by analyzing the change in gold price vs inflation year by year over the long term. As Chuck mentioned, there are periods in which it didn't exceed inflation. More important, over any sufficiently long length of time the US stock market will outperform. Those who bought at the '87 peak aren't doing too bad, yet those who bought in the last gold bubble haven't kept up with inflation. $850 put into gold at the '80 top would inflate today to $2220 per the inflation calculator. You can find with a bit of charting some periods where gold outpaced inflation, and some where it missed. Back to the definition of investment. I think gold fits speculation far better than it does investment. I've heard the word used in ways I'd disagree with, spend what you will on the shoes, but no, they aren't an investment, I tell my wife. The treadmill purchase may improve my health, and people may use the word colloquially, but it's not an investment." }, { "docid": "487817", "title": "", "text": "Investing $100k into physical gold (bars or coins) is the most prudent option; given the state of economic turmoil worldwide. Take a look at the long term charts; they're pretty self explanatory. Gold has an upward trend for 100+ years. http://www.goldbuyguide.com/price/ A more high risk/high reward investment would be to buy $100k of physical silver. Silver has a similar track record and inherent benefits of gold. Yet, with a combination of factors that could make it even more bull than gold (ie- better liquidity, industrial demand). Beyond that, you may want to look at other commodities such as oil and agriculture. The point is, this is troubled times for worldwide economies. Times like this you want to invest in REAL things like commodities or companies that are actually producing essential materials." }, { "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": "301600", "title": "", "text": "Annuity calculation formulas can be found here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annuity_(finance_theory). In addition, as suggested in the comments, there are many sites that have calculators. Having said that, a simple financial mechanism that is followed by many is to invest a portion of the fund in regular income instruments, for example Govt. or corporate bonds that pay a regular coupon/interest and some in diversified instruments like gold, stock etc. The exact proportion is dependent on may factors, like mortality, inflation, lifestyle, health care requirements, other expenses. The regular income provides the day to day expenses on a monthly/yearly basis, while the other instruments hedge against inflation and provide growth." }, { "docid": "287837", "title": "", "text": "\"&gt;If you know that a company called Toyota with no access to any retained earnings... Okay, we are talking at cross-purposes here. I take it as axiomatic that speculative ventures by private actors is mostly a net good thing (e.g., grocery stores buying produce before the customer has handed over the gold, car-makers designing and building cars before they have been paid for end-to-end, etc...). Even if a lot of them fail, I take it as axiomatic that we would not have things like laptop computers and fresh oranges year-round and non-iron shirts without that kind of speculative investment. I also take it as axiomatic that such speculative investment could not/would not exist without privately- or publicly-issued promissory notes. E.g., I do not think anyone would ever have made the first laptop computer, if doing so required directly handing previously-acquired gold coins to everyone involved in the design and construction. A caveman with no money but infinite time could have built his own Macbook Pro with retina display: like everything else we have, it was dug up out of the ground by people no stronger than you or I. All the functionality is just ingenuity and machining, it's just stuff dug up and re-combined by people, not necessarily smarter than anyone else. The fact that it *has* been done by human beings, means, by definition, that it *can* be done by human beings. Ergo, a caveman could have done it. Could have placed a man on the moon, or built himself a 60\"\" 1080p TV, or an iPod, or a nuclear bomb, or a Ferrari, or sent a satellite past the solar-system, anything at all. We don't have anything that he didn't have: just ingenuity, and whatever we dig up out of the ground. But more realistically, the difference between us and cavemen is twofold: - We have a historical record, and the accumulated ingenuity of millions of individual insights; and, - We have an economy, based on credibility and promises, that allows things to be invented, tested, and made, before they are paid for. I suggest that it is axiomatic that, for example, iPads would not exist if physical gold had to change hands at every step of development and manufacturing before it could occur, or at the instance of occurance. There is just no sane scenario where a product like that comes into existence without promises and speculative investment and loan-guarantees. Same with fresh lettuce in winter, or plumbing or electricity or cable-TV. You can't just trade a grain of gold for every gallon of water that comes out of your shower in real-time to a wet bill-collector, or stick some gold in the cable-jack for every minute of internet. Someone is promising something, without having produced it yet. Whether you paid in advance, or they bill your the service later, value has changed hands on credit and promises. It's not a sane proposition that every transaction be a closed-loop, pay-as-you-go thing. Especially when you get into commercial transactions. The modern world would not exist without credit markets, and credit markets cannot exist without something like fractional reserve banking. Demanding that everyone instantly reconcile every value-exchange with a physical transfer of gold or some such is not a sane proposition. Would your cell-phone company pay someone to follow you around and collect grains of gold for every call? If so, would that person in turn be followed by the cell-tower owner, and so on? Offering to \"\"pay in advance\"\" doesn't negate the conundrum: they still have to provide service, which may or may not be covered by your gram of gold. It's still a credit market, no matter which way the faucet runs. And a credit market means, ipso-facto, that more money is in circulation than has been printed.\"" }, { "docid": "176414", "title": "", "text": "\"&gt;Actually the reason isn't because of the gold standard. The real reason is because we have seen a sharp increase in fruit imports over the past 5 decades. Huh? Agriculture is down to single digits as part of the GDP. What does that have to do with a gold standard and monetary policy? &gt;Productivity is up rather dramatically as compared to 40 years ago. Maybe you mean manufacturing? Productivity is up since say, the turn of the century but this is to be expected since we incorporated electricity, oil, automobiles and eventually computers. But as soon as the USA left the gold exchange standard, total factor productivity began to dramatically stagnate. That means the growth in productivity. You can see this best here: http://azizonomics.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/tfp.jpeg Think of productivity like GDP. It used to be 5 and was on its way to 6, but right as we went off the gold standard, productivity increases stagnated and by 2007 we're only at 5.5 instead of the expected 6. This uses a logarithmic function wherein 6 is 10x more than 5. So while productivity has not fallen in an absolute sense, growth in productivity which is more important than absolute GDP growth has fallen and is infact related to a decrease in productivity growth. &gt;The reason you're seeing the gains over the past several years shifting towards the rich is due to a combination of tax policy and a rise in cronyism caused by our campaign financing problems. Big businesses often have a lot of lobbying power to get laws passed that ultimately are felt by the rest of the economy. The reason it has shifted to the rich is because as the currency has debased the gains have gone towards the biggest companies, wealthiest individuals, assisted by government which works like an auction house to those with connections which is why lobbying ROI is huge. &gt;Fiat currency is a good thing for countries like the United States. We can safely finance and pay our debts for a few more years while wracking up debt without fear of hyperinflation. Because our massive debt is doing so well for us? In the beginning it looks nice because there is very little pain and is practically unnoticible, but as we see current events playing out in the US and to a greater extent Europe which isnt as tightly knit economically as the US, fiat currency has huge problems. Hyperinflation of commodities and deflation of assets are occuring before our eyes. House values are plummeting, medical/education/consumer goods are inflating. Not QUITE to the hyper part, but inflation is increasing and only when commodities such as oil see a deflation in demand as we see right now does inflation look under control. Shadow inflation is very much alive. If you have dollars in savings, the rates do not even outpace inflation, you are forced into riskier and risker investments to make a return. &gt;Now, there may be a lot to gripe about how the United States is currently spending its money, but it's established \"\"practical\"\" fact that government investment can spur growth, level out recessions, help people, etc. Established over what? the last 40 years? Thats hardly enough time to call practical fact when the gold standard existed for hundreds and thousands of years. Infact NO fiat currency that has ever existed has survived. That is the real fact, and the dollar and euro themselves are currently going through the end stages of this cancer. &gt;TL;DR The Gold Standard sucks, it has a lot of problems. Fiat Currency rocks for the USA because USA Fuck yeah! We are in a particular advantage where the real risks of fiat currency don't really apply to the USA **55 Million on food stamps with 20-30 million more on other forms of government assistance such as unemployment and welfare, unemployment increasing, GDP growth decreasing, median income decreasing, total employment stagnant (Same number of full time wage earners exist today as in 2000, despite 30+ million more American citizens), decreased consumer confidence, Average age of cars on the road went from 5 years in the 1960s to 12 years today (people dont buy new cars as frequently meaning less disposable income), decreased home ownership, increased retirement age, decreased young american employment.** **I am not sure why you think that the USA is in such a great position. The american dream is faultering if you're just starting out in life. Just ask any number of recent college grads who are increasingly living with parents, not getting married and can't find jobs.**\"" }, { "docid": "572670", "title": "", "text": "\"Okay - but that's about gold as an investment in today's world, and during an extremely unstable financial situation. Many other types of investments could be used similarly. Those who advocate gold as a hedge don't advocate buying it during a crisis, they advocate keeping some as part of an investment strategy... but again, that's gold as gold, not gold as currency. Leveraging your investments based on current financial situations is what investing is about. Gold as a medium for currency is a totally different thing. What you just described would be called \"\"arbitrage\"\" - in moving markets (or other situations I guess) looking for no-lose situations where you can trade things around and increase your net value doing it. it helps stabilize markets - as people take advantage of this situation it counters the effect and self-corrects... think about it ;)\"" }, { "docid": "67816", "title": "", "text": "\"Even if the price of your home did match inflation or better — and that's a question I'll let the other answers address — I propose that owning a home, by itself, is not a sufficient hedge against inflation. Consider: Inflation will inflate your living expenses. If you're lucky, they'll inflate at the average. If you're unlucky, a change in your spending patterns (perhaps age-related) could result in your expenses rising faster than inflation. (Look at the sub-indexes of the CPI.) Without income also rising with inflation (or better), how will you cope with rising living expenses? Each passing year, advancing living expenses risk eclipsing a static income. Your home is an illiquid asset. Generally speaking, it neither generates income for you, nor can you sell only a portion. At best, owning your principal residence helps you avoid a rent expense and inflation in rents — but rent is only one of many living expenses. Some consider a reverse-mortgage an option to tap home equity, but it has a high cost. In other words: If you don't want to be forced to liquidate [sell] your home, you'll also need to look at ways to ensure your income sources rise with inflation. i.e. look at your cash flow, not just your net worth. Hence: investing in housing, as in your own principal residence, is not an adequate hedge against inflation. If you owned additional properties to generate rental income, and you retained pricing power so you could increase the rent charged at least in line with inflation, your situation would be somewhat improved — except you would, perhaps, be adopting another problem: Too high a concentration in a single asset class. Consequently, I would look at ways other than housing to hedge against inflation. Consider other kinds of investments. \"\"Safe as houses\"\" may be a cliché, but it is no guarantee.\"" }, { "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": "480749", "title": "", "text": "You will not be able to continue filing with TurboTax if you invest in foreign funds. Form 8261 which is required to report PFIC investments is not included. Read the form instructions carefully - if you don't feel shocked and scared, you didn't understand what it says. The bottom line is that the American Congress doesn't want you do what you want to do and will punish you dearly." } ]

[ { "docid": "94477", "title": "", "text": "Usually, you can buy ETFs through brokerages. I looked at London to see if there's any familiar brokerage names, and it appears that the address below is to Fidelity Investments Worldwide and their site indicates that you can buy securities. Any brokerage, in theory, should allow you to invest in securities. You could always call and ask if they allow you to invest in ETFs. Some brokerages may also allow you to purchase securities in other countries; for instance, some of the firms in the U.S. allow investors to invest in the ETF HK:2801, which is not a U.S. ETF. Many countries have ETF securities available to local and foreign investors. This site appears to help point people to brokers in London. Also, see this answer on this site (a UK investor who's invested in the U.S. through Barclays)." }, { "docid": "489640", "title": "", "text": "First I assume you are resident for tax purposes in the UK? 1 Put 2000 in a cash ISA as an emergency fund. 2 Buy shares in 2 or 3 of the big generalist Investment trusts as they have low charges and long track records – unless your a higher rate tax payer don’t buy the shares inside the ISA its not worth it You could use FTSE 100 tracker ETF's or iShares instead of Investment Trusts." }, { "docid": "244813", "title": "", "text": "\"It depends. Dividends and fees are usually unrelated. If the ETF holds a lot of stocks which pay significant dividends (e.g. an S&P500 index fund) these will probably cover the cost of the fees pretty readily. If the ETF holds a lot of stocks which do not pay significant dividends (e.g. growth stocks) there may not be any dividends - though hopefully there will be capital appreciation. Some ETFs don't contain stocks at all, but rather some other instruments (e.g. commodity-trust ETFs which hold precious metals like gold and silver, or daily-leveraged ETFs which hold options). In those cases there will never be any dividends. And depending on the performance of the market, the capital appreciation may or may not cover the expenses of the fund, either. If you look up QQQ's financials, you'll find it most recently paid out a dividend at an annualized rate of 0.71%. Its expense ratio is 0.20%. So the dividends more than cover its expense ratio. You could also ask \"\"why would I care?\"\" because unless you're doing some pretty-darned-specific tax-related modeling, it doesn't matter much whether the ETF covers its expense ratio via dividends or whether it comes out of capital gains. You should probably be more concerned with overall returns (for QQQ in the most recent year, 8.50% - which easily eclipses the dividends.)\"" }, { "docid": "306800", "title": "", "text": "If you are a non resident Indian, the income you earn and transfer to India is tax free in India. You can hold the funds in USD or convert then into INR, there is no tax implication." }, { "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": "447197", "title": "", "text": "See my answer here What is the dividend tax rate for UK stock The only tax from US stocks you'd need to worry about would be dividend withholding tax of 30%. If you contact your ISA provider they should be able to provide you with a W8-BEN form so that you can have this rate reduced to 15%. Just because there's a tax treaty does not mean you will automatically be charged 15% - you must provide a W8-BEN form and renew it when it expires. That last 15% is unfortunately unavoidable. If you were paying any UK taxes you could claim that 15% as a discount against your UK dividend tax liability, but as your US stock would be wrapped in an ISA there's no UK tax to pay which means no tax to reclaim from the tax treaty. Other than DWT though, you will pay absolutely no tax on US stocks held in an ISA to either the US or UK government." }, { "docid": "446647", "title": "", "text": "I want to send some money to Indian in my saving account but I haven't any NRO/NRE account. It is advisable to Open an NRE account. As an NRI you cannot hold a savings account. Please have this converted into NRO account ASAP. Process or Transaction charges or Tax (levied by Indian bank) on money what I'll send to my saving account in India. I know the process or transaction charges (applied by UK banks) from UK to India. There will be a nominal charge levied by banks in India. If you use dedicated Remittance services [Most Leading Indian Banks offer this], these are mostly free. Is there any limit to get rid off tax? Nope there isn't any limit. This depends on service provider. What types of paper work I'll need to do for showing that income is sent from UK after paying tax. If you transfer to NRE account. There is no paperwork required. It is implicit. If not you have to establish that the funds are received from outside India, keep copies of the transfer request initiated, debits to the Bank Account in UK, your salary slips, Passport stamps etc." }, { "docid": "424216", "title": "", "text": "You should definitely be able to keep the US bank account and credit cards. I'm a UK citizen and resident who worked in the US for a few months (on a temporary visa) many years back and I still have the US bank account from that time. Unless you are planning on moving to the UK permanently, you also should keep your US bank account and cards to make the process of moving back there eventually easier. I would also suggest keeping/moving at least a portion of your savings to the US at regular intervals to insure you against the risk that exchange rates will be against you when you move back. It'll also make things easier when you visit the US as you presumably will every so often - if you use your US account and cards you won't get hit so badly by charges for making each individual payment." }, { "docid": "289291", "title": "", "text": "\"The name of the Gilt states the redemption date, but not the original issue date. A gilt with 8.75% yield and close to its redemption date may have been issued at a time when interest rates were indeed close to 8.75%. For example in the early 1990s, the UK inflation rate was about 8%. One reason for preferring high or low coupon gilts is the trade off between capital gains and income, and the different taxation rules for each. If you buy a gilt and hold it to its maturity date, you know in advance the exact price that it will be redeemed for (i.e. £100). You may prefer to take a high level of income now, knowing you will make a capital loss in future (which might offset some other predictable capital gain for tax purposes) or you may prefer not to take income that you don't need right now, and instead get a guaranteed capital gain in future (for example, when you plan to retire from work). Also, you can use the change in the market value of gilts as a gamble or a hedge against your expectation of interest rate changes in future, with the \"\"government guaranteed\"\" fallback position that if your predictions are wrong, you know exactly what return you will get if you hold the gilts to maturity. The same idea applies to other bond investments - but without the government guarantee, of course.\"" }, { "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": "198532", "title": "", "text": "Since you're a US citizen, submitting W8-BEN was wrong. If you read the form carefully, when you signed it you certified that you are not a US citizen, which is a lie and you knew it. W9 and W8 are mutually exclusive. You're either a US person for tax purposes or you're not, you cannot be both. As a US citizen - you are a US person for tax purposes, whether you have any other citizenship or not, and whether you live in (or have ever been to) the US or not. You do need to file tax returns just like any other US citizen. If you have an aggregate of $10K or more on your bank accounts outside of the US at any given day - you need to file FBAR. FATCA forms may also be applicable, depending on your balances. From foreign banks' perspective you're a US person, with regard to their FATCA obligations. Whether or not you'll be punished is hard to tell. Whether or not you could be punished is easy to tell: you could. You knowingly broke the law by certifying that you're not a US citizen when you were. That is in addition to un-filed tax returns, FBAR, etc etc. The fact that you were born outside of the US and have never lived there is technically irrelevant. Not knowing the law is not a reasonable cause for breaking it. Get a US-licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in the US) to help you sort it out." }, { "docid": "511559", "title": "", "text": "\"While nothing is guaranteed - any stock market or country could collapse tomorrow - if you have a fairly long window (15+ years is certainly long), ETFs are likely to earn you well above inflation. Looking at long term ETFs, you typically see close to 10% annual growth over almost any ten year period in the US, and while I don't know European indexes, they're probably well above inflation at least. The downside of ETFs is that your money is somewhat less liquid than in a savings account, and any given year you might not earn anything - you easily could lose money in a particular year. As such, you shouldn't have money in ETFs that you expect to use in the next few months or year or even a few years, perhaps. But as long as you're willing to play the long game - ie, invest in ETF, don't touch it for 15 years except to reinvest the dividends - as long as you go with someone like Vanguard, and use a very low expense ratio fund (mine are 0.06% and 0.10%, I believe), you are likely in the long term to come out ahead. You can diversify your holdings - hold 10% to 20% in bond funds, for example - if you're concerned about risk; look at how some of the \"\"Target\"\" retirement funds allocate their investments to see how diversification can work [Target retirement funds assume high risk tolerance far out and then as the age grows the risk tolerance drops; don't invest in them, but it can be a good example of how to do it.] All of this does require a tolerance of risk, though, and you have to be able to not touch your funds even if they go down - studies have repeatedly shown that trying to time the market is a net loss for most people, and the best thing you can do when your (diverse) investments go down is stay neutral (talking about large funds here and not individual stocks). I think this answers 3 and 4. For 1, share price AND quantity matter (assuming no splits). This depends somewhat on the fund; but at minimum, funds must dividend to you what they receive as dividends. There are Dividend focused ETFs, which are an interesting topic in themselves; but a regular ETF doesn't usually have all that large of dividends. For more information, investopedia has an article on the subject. Note that there are also capital gains distributions, which are typically distributed to help offset capital gains taxes that may occur from time to time with an ETF. Those aren't really returns - you may have to hand most or all over to the IRS - so don't consider distributions the same way. The share price tracks the total net asset value of the fund divided by the number of shares (roughly, assuming no supply/demand split). This should go up as the stocks the ETF owns go up; overall, this is (for non-dividend ETFs) more often the larger volatility both up and down. For Vanguard's S&P500 ETF which you can see here, there were about $3.50 in dividends over 2014, which works out to about a 2% return ($185-$190 share price). On the other hand, the share price went from around $168 at the beginning of 2014 to $190 at the end of 2014, for a return of 13%. That was during a 'good' year for the market, of course; there will be years where you get 2-3% in dividends and lose money; in 2011 it opened at 116 and closed the year at 115 (I don't have the dividend for that year; certainly lower than 3.5% I'd think, but likely nonzero.) The one caveat here is that you do have stock splits, where they cut the price (say) in half and give you double the shares. That of course is revenue neutral - you have the same value the day after the split as before, net of market movements. All of this is good from a tax point of view, by the way; changes in price don't hit you until you sell the stock/fund (unless the fund has some capital gains), while dividends and distributions do. ETFs are seen as 'tax-friendly' for this reason. For 2, Vanguard is pretty good about this (in the US); I wouldn't necessarily invest monthly, but quarterly shouldn't be a problem. Just pay attention to the fees and figure out what the optimal frequency is (ie, assuming 10% return, what is your break even point). You would want to have some liquid assets anyway, so allow that liquid amount to rise over the quarter, then invest what you don't immediately see a need to use. You can see here Vanguard in the US has no fees for buying shares, but has a minimum of one share; so if you're buying their S&P500 (VOO), you'd need to wait until you had $200 or so to invest in order to invest additional funds.\"" }, { "docid": "60952", "title": "", "text": "how could I transfer the money from UK There are multiple ways, walk into your Bank and ask them to wire transfer to the Bank Account in India. You would need the SWIFT BIC of Bank in India, Account Number, etc. Quite a few Banks [State bank of India, HDFC, ICICI etc] also offer remittance service. Visit their website for more details. does it cost the tax and how much Assuming your status is NRI [Non Resident], there is no tax implications of this in India." }, { "docid": "63666", "title": "", "text": "Disclaimer: it's hard to be definitive as there may be some law or tax rule I'm not aware of. From a UK perspective, this should be perfectly legal. If it's just a one-off or occasional thing for personal reasons, rather than being done in the course of a business, there probably aren't any tax implications. In theory if there's an identifiable profit from the transaction, e.g. because you originally obtained the INR at a lower exchange rate, then you might be liable to capital gains tax. However this is only payable above approximately £10K capital gains (see http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/rates/cgt.htm) so unless this is a very large transaction or you have other gains in the tax year, you don't need to worry about that. I would only recommend doing this if you trust each other. If one side transfers the money and the other doesn't, the international nature will make it quite hard in practice to enforce the agreement legally, even though I think that in theory it should be possible. If the sums involved are large, you may find that the transaction is automatically reported to the authorities by your bank under money laundering regulations, or they may want documentation of the source of the funds/reason for the transaction. This doesn't automatically mean you'll have a problem, but the transaction may receive some scrutiny. I think that reporting typically kicks in when several thousand pounds are involved." }, { "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": "313897", "title": "", "text": "An ETF manager will only allow certain financial organisations to create and redeem ETF shares. These are called Authorised Participants (APs). The APs have the resources to bundled up packages of shares that they already own and hold in order to match the ETFs requirements. In the case of the EDEN ETF, this portfolio is the MSCI Denmark Index. Only APs transact business directly with the ETF manager. When ETF shares need to be created, the AP will bundle up the portfolio of shares and deliver them to the ETF manager. In return, the ETF manager will deliver to the AP the corresponding number of shares in the ETF. Note that no cash changes hands here. (These ETF shares are now available for trading in the market via the AP. Note that investors do not transact business directly with the ETF manager.) Similarly, when ETF shares need to be redeemed, the AP will deliver the ETF shares to the ETF manager. In return, the ETF manager will deliver to the AP the corresponding portfolio of shares. Again, no cash changes hands here. Normally, with an established and liquid ETF, investors like you and me will transact small purchases and sales of ETF shares with other small investors in the market. In the event that an AP needs to transact business with an investor, they will do so by either buying or selling the ETF shares. In the event that they have insufficient ETF shares to meet demand, they will bundle up a portfolio deliver them to the ETF provider in return for ETF shares, thus enabling them to meet demand. In the event that a lot of investors are selling and the AP ends up holding an excessive amount of ETF shares, they will deliver unwanted shares to the ETF manager in exchange for a portfolio of the underlying shares. According to this scheme, large liquidations of ETF holdings should not effect the share prices of the underlying portfolio. This is because the underlying shares are not sold in the market, rather they are simply returned to the AP in exchange for the ETF shares (Recall that no cash is changing hands in this type of transaction). The corresponding trail of dividends and distributions to ETF share holders follows the same scheme." }, { "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": "284805", "title": "", "text": "\"Others have given a lot of advice about how to invest, but as a former expat I wanted to throw this in: US citizens living and investing overseas can VERY easily run afoul of the IRS. Laws and regulations designed to prevent offshore tax havens can also make it very difficult for expats to do effective investing and estate planning. Among other things, watch out for: US citizens owe US income tax on world income regardless of where they live or earn money FBAR reporting requirements affect foreign accounts valued over $10k The IRS penalizes (often heavily) certain types of financial accounts. Tax-sheltered accounts (for education, retirement, etc.) are in the crosshairs, and anything the IRS deems a \"\"foreign-controlled trust\"\" is especially bad. Heavy taxes on investment not purchased from a US stock exchange Some US states will demand income taxes from former residents (including expats) who cannot prove residency in a different US state. I believe California is neutral in that regard, at least. I am neither a lawyer nor an accountant nor a financial advisor, so please take the above only as a starting point so you know what sorts of questions to ask the relevant experts.\"" }, { "docid": "187706", "title": "", "text": "One other consideration. If you are a US citizen or Resident Alien, you are going to owe US income taxes regardless of where you earn the money. Here it is straight from the horse's mouth: Tax guide for US Citizens living abroad" } ]

[ { "docid": "181942", "title": "", "text": "My understanding is that EWU (and EWUS) are both traded on US stock markets (NYSE & BATS), and as such these are not classified as PFIC. However, they do contain PFICs, so iShares takes the responsibility of handling the PFICs they contain and make adjustments in December. This contains the information about the adjustments made in 2016. https://www.ishares.com/us/literature/tax-information/pfic-2016.pdf On page 106 of the statement of the summary information they describe how they handle paying the necessary tax as an expense of the fund. https://www.ishares.com/us/library/stream-document?stream=reg&product=WEBXGBP&shareClass=NA&documentId=925898~926077~926112~1180071~1242912&iframeUrlOverride=%2Fus%2Fliterature%2Fsai%2Fsai-ishares-trust-8-31.pdf (I'm not a tax professional)" } ]

[ { "docid": "284805", "title": "", "text": "\"Others have given a lot of advice about how to invest, but as a former expat I wanted to throw this in: US citizens living and investing overseas can VERY easily run afoul of the IRS. Laws and regulations designed to prevent offshore tax havens can also make it very difficult for expats to do effective investing and estate planning. Among other things, watch out for: US citizens owe US income tax on world income regardless of where they live or earn money FBAR reporting requirements affect foreign accounts valued over $10k The IRS penalizes (often heavily) certain types of financial accounts. Tax-sheltered accounts (for education, retirement, etc.) are in the crosshairs, and anything the IRS deems a \"\"foreign-controlled trust\"\" is especially bad. Heavy taxes on investment not purchased from a US stock exchange Some US states will demand income taxes from former residents (including expats) who cannot prove residency in a different US state. I believe California is neutral in that regard, at least. I am neither a lawyer nor an accountant nor a financial advisor, so please take the above only as a starting point so you know what sorts of questions to ask the relevant experts.\"" }, { "docid": "168642", "title": "", "text": "Here is a list of European ETFs you can buy in Europe: iShares Europe and DB x-Trackers. Both offer ETFs for Spanish citizens. Regarding your question in your comment on if you could buy Austrian ETFs as a Spanish citizen: If your broker offers Austrian ETFs you can buy them as well. I do not believe that there would be any legal restrictions. For a good international broker, which would allow you to buy these ETFs I would recommend looking at Interactive Brokers.com" }, { "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": "297051", "title": "", "text": "Yes, you can keep the accounts. In fact, I opened my US bank account as a Canadian citizen living in Canada, and still have it after living in the US and returning. American Express offers UK cards and the have an excellent system for transferring the cards. You should definitely contact them about this, otherwise you will likely have to start building credit from scratch in the UK. AE Global Card Transfer" }, { "docid": "326559", "title": "", "text": "The link provided by DumbCoder (below) is only relevant to UK resident investors and does not apply if you live in Malaysia. I noticed that in a much older question you asked a similar question about taxes on US stocks, so I'll try and answer both situations here. The answer is almost the same for any country you decide to invest in. As a foreign investor, the country from which you purchase stock cannot charge you tax on either income or capital gains. Taxation is based on residency, so even when you purchase foreign stock its the tax laws of Malaysia (as your country of residence) that matter. At the time of writing, Malaysia does not levy any capital gains tax and there is no income tax charged on dividends so you won't have to declare or pay any tax on your stocks regardless of where you buy them from. The only exception to this is Dividend Withholding Tax, which is a special tax taken by the government of the country you bought the stock from before it is paid to your account. You do not need to declare this tax as it his already been taken by the time you receive your dividend. The rate of DWT that will be withheld is unique to each country. The UK does not have any withholding tax so you will always receive the full dividend on UK stocks. The withholding tax rate for the US is 30%. Other countries vary. For most countries that do charge a withholding tax, it is possible to have this reduced to 15% if there is a double taxation treaty in place between the two countries and all of the following are true: Note: Although the taxation rules of both countries are similar, I am a resident of Singapore not Malaysia so I can't speak from first hand experience, but current Malaysia tax rates are easy to find online. The rest of this information is common to any non-US/UK resident investor (as long as you're not a US person)." }, { "docid": "517935", "title": "", "text": "I use and recommend barchart.com. Again you have to register but it's free. Although it's a US system it has a full listing of UK stocks and ETFs under International > London. The big advantage of barchart.com is that you can do advanced technical screening with Stochastics and RS, new highs and lows, moving averages etc. You're not stuck with just fundamentals, which in my opinion belong to a previous era. Even if you don't share that opinion you'd still find barchart.com useful for UK stocks." }, { "docid": "324585", "title": "", "text": "\"I should think the primary reason is due why those countries have a higher standard of salary - its not what you get, but what it buys you. In a high-salary, low-exchange-rate country like Sweden, you get a lot of services that your taxes buy you. Healthcare and quality of life in a stable country is something you want when you get old (note that your viewpoint might be very different when you're a kid). Moving to a country that has less impact on your finances is often because that country has significantly fewer services to offer. So a Swedish citizen might think about moving to a 3rd world country and find that their retirement income isn't sufficient to pay for the kind of lifestyle they actually want, such countries tend to be pleasant to live in only if you are exceptionally wealthy. Now this kind of thing does happen, but only \"\"within reason\"\", there are a number of old people who retire to the coast (in the UK at least) and many people who used to work in London who retire to the south west. For them, the idea of moving doesn't seem so bad as they are moving to areas where many other people in their situation have also moved. See Florida for an example for US citizens too.\"" }, { "docid": "289291", "title": "", "text": "\"The name of the Gilt states the redemption date, but not the original issue date. A gilt with 8.75% yield and close to its redemption date may have been issued at a time when interest rates were indeed close to 8.75%. For example in the early 1990s, the UK inflation rate was about 8%. One reason for preferring high or low coupon gilts is the trade off between capital gains and income, and the different taxation rules for each. If you buy a gilt and hold it to its maturity date, you know in advance the exact price that it will be redeemed for (i.e. £100). You may prefer to take a high level of income now, knowing you will make a capital loss in future (which might offset some other predictable capital gain for tax purposes) or you may prefer not to take income that you don't need right now, and instead get a guaranteed capital gain in future (for example, when you plan to retire from work). Also, you can use the change in the market value of gilts as a gamble or a hedge against your expectation of interest rate changes in future, with the \"\"government guaranteed\"\" fallback position that if your predictions are wrong, you know exactly what return you will get if you hold the gilts to maturity. The same idea applies to other bond investments - but without the government guarantee, of course.\"" }, { "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": "470879", "title": "", "text": "So how is it that American citizens working overseas get taxed, but American companies holding profits overseas don't? Or foreign companies making profits within the US for that matter. I don't really think we should be protectionist, but I do think corporations should be paying a fair share of taxes needed to support infrastructure, social and legal framework." }, { "docid": "144190", "title": "", "text": "You can receive funds from US Client as an individual. There is no legal requirement for you to have a company. If the transactions are large say more than 20 lacs in a year, its advisable to open a Private Ltd. Although its simple opening & Registering a company [A CA or a Laywer would get one at a nominal price of Rs 5000] you can do yourself. Whatever be the case, its advisable to have seperate accounts for this business / professional service transactions. Maintain proper records of the funds received. There are certain benefits you can claim, a CA can help you. Paying taxes in Advance is your responsibility and hence make sure you keep paying every quarter as advance tax. Related questions Indian citizen working from India as freelancer for U.S.-based company. How to report the income & pay tax in India? Freelancer in India working for Swiss Company Freelancing to UK company from India How do I account for money paid to colleagues out of my professional income?" }, { "docid": "597519", "title": "", "text": "it looks like using an ADR is the way to go here. michelin has an ADR listed OTC as MGDDY. since it is an ADR it is technically a US company that just happens to be a shell company holding only shares of michelin. as such, there should not be any odd tax or currency implications. while it is an OTC stock, it should settle in the US just like any other US OTC. obviously, you are exposing yourself to exchange rate fluctuations, but since michelin derives much of it's income from the US, it should perform similarly to other multinational companies. notes on brokers: most US brokers should be able to sell you OTC stocks using their regular rates (e.g. etrade, tradeking). however, it looks like robinhood.com does not offer this option (yet). in particular, i confirmed directly from tradeking that the 75$ foreign settlement fee does not apply to MGDDY because it is an ADR, and not a (non-ADR) foreign security." }, { "docid": "306800", "title": "", "text": "If you are a non resident Indian, the income you earn and transfer to India is tax free in India. You can hold the funds in USD or convert then into INR, there is no tax implication." }, { "docid": "84528", "title": "", "text": "\"Tax US corporate \"\"persons (citizens)\"\" under the same regime as US human persons/citizens, i.e., file/pay taxes on all income earned annually with deductions for foreign taxes paid. Problem solved for both shareholders and governments. [US Citizens and Resident Aliens Abroad - Filing Requirements](https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/us-citizens-and-resident-aliens-abroad-filing-requirements) &gt;If you are a U.S. citizen or resident alien living or traveling outside the United States, **you generally are required to file income tax returns, estate tax returns, and gift tax returns and pay estimated tax in the same way as those residing in the United States.** Thing is, we know solving this isn't the point. It is to misdirect and talk about everything, but the actual issues, i.e., the discrepancy between tax regimes applied to persons and the massive inequality it creates in tax responsibility. Because that would lead to the simple solutions that the populace need/crave. My guess is most US human persons would LOVE to pay taxes only on what was left AFTER they covered their expenses.\"" }, { "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": "298796", "title": "", "text": "The finance team from your company should be able to advise you. From what I understand you are Indian Citizen for Tax purposes. Any income you receive globally is taxable in India. In this specific case you are still having a Employee relationship with your employer and as such the place of work does not matter. You are still liable to pay tax in India on the salary. If you are out of India for more than 182 days, you can be considered as Non-Resident from tax point of view. However this clause would not be of any benefit to you as are having a Employee / Employer relationship and being paid in India. Edit: This is only about the India portion of taxes. There maybe a UK protion of it as well, plus legally can you work and your type of Visa in UK may have a bearing on the answer" }, { "docid": "215761", "title": "", "text": "\"Well, the article does go into certain tax schemes. You can use the debt as a write-off to lower your tax rate. That's just a legal tax scheme in the UK and many other countries. The problem though is that the UK department of Starbucks is apparently very profitable: &gt; US executives of the Seattle company claiming in telephone calls with investors [...] that the UK business was profitable. and &gt; Howard Schultz, told investors the business here was so successful he planned to apply the lessons to the company's biggest market in the US. It's just that the books tell a different story: &gt; Accounts filed with Companies House [...] showed a 10th consecutive annual loss. So no, it's not a just a matter of revenue vs sales. It's a matter of boosting your losses with outside, sometimes artificial debt, just so you can run with a negative on the books. This lowers the tax rate on the true sales to a whopping 0.3%, even though the business is perfectly healthy. That's misusing a tax scheme aimed at easing the tax burden on \"\"national\"\" businesses which aren't profitable.\"" }, { "docid": "314056", "title": "", "text": "This question is indeed rather complicated. Let's simplify it a little bit. Paying down your mortgage makes sense if your expected return in the rest of your portfolio is less than the cost of the mortgage. In many cases, people may also decide to pay down their mortgage because they are risk-averse and do not like carrying debt. There's no tax benefit to doing so, though; Canada doesn't generally allow you to write off mortgage interest, unlike the U.S. As to keeping money in the corporation or not, I'm not going to address that. I don't have a firm enough understanding of corporate taxation. Canadian Couch Potato advises treating all of your investment assets as one large portfolio. That is what you are trying to do here. However, let's consider a different approach. If you do not have enough money to max out your RRSP or TFSA, you may choose to keep your TFSA for an emergency fund, where the money is kept highly liquid. Keep your cash in an interest-bearing TFSA, or perhaps invest it in the money market, inside your TFSA. Then, use your RRSP for the rest of your investment money, split according to your investment goals. This is not the most tax-efficient approach, but it is nice and simple. But you are looking for the most tax-efficient approach. So, let's assume you have enough to more than max out your TFSA and RRSP contributions, and all of your investments are going toward your retirement, which is at least a decade away. Because you are not taxed on your investment income from RRSPs (until you withdraw the money) or TFSA, it makes sense to hold the least tax-efficient investments there. Tax-advantaged investments such as Canadian equities should be held in your investment accounts outside of TFSA and RRSPs. Again, the Canadian Couch Potato has a great article on where to put your investment assets. That article covers interest, dividends, foreign dividends, and capital gains, as well as RRSPs, RESPs, and TFSAs. That article recommends holding Canadian equities in a taxable account, REITs in a tax-sheltered account (TFSA or RRSP), bonds, GICs, and money-market funds in a tax-sheltered account (as these count as interest). The article goes into rather more detail than this, and is worth checking out. It mentions the 15% withholding tax on US-listed ETFs, for example. In addition to that website, I recommend the following three books: The above three resources strongly advocate passive indexed investments, which I like but not everyone agrees with. All three specifically discuss tax implications, which is why I include them here." }, { "docid": "51777", "title": "", "text": "The UK has historically aggressive financial law, inherited from Dutch friendship, influence, and acquisitions by conquest. The law is so open that nearly anyone can invest through the UK without much difficulty, and citizens have nearly no restrictions on where to invest. A UK citizen can either open an account in the US with paperwork hassles or at home with access to all world markets and less paperwork. Here is the UK version of my broker, Interactive Brokers. Their costs are the lowest, but you will be charged a minimum fee if you do not trade enough, and their minimum opening balance can be prohibitively high for some. If you do buy US products, be sure to file your W-8BEN." } ]

[ { "docid": "67785", "title": "", "text": "I won't be able to model stock prices using this information. The pros aren't likely to use Google as much. Even the casual investor is likely to have his own habits. For example, I've come to like how Yahoo permits me to set up a portfolio and follow the stocks I want. And the information that interests me is there, laid out nicely, price, history, insider trades, news etc. But your effort probably still has some discovery value, as it will help you understand when interest in a company suddenly swells above normal. Nothing wrong with a good project like that. Just don't expect to extract too much market-beating success from it. The pros will eat your lunch, take your money, and not even say thanks. Welcome to Money.SE." } ]

[ { "docid": "41625", "title": "", "text": "\"Oddly enough, in the USA, there are enough cost and tax savings between buy-and-hold of a static portfolio and buying into a fund that a few brokerages have sprung up around the concept, such as FolioFN, to make it easier for small investors to manage numerous small holdings via fractional shares and no commission window trades. A static buy-and-hold portfolio of stocks can be had for a few dollars per trade. Buying into a fund involves various annual and one time fees that are quoted as percentages of the investment. Even 1-2% can be a lot, especially if it is every year. Typically, a US mutual fund must send out a 1099 tax form to each investor, stating that investors share of the dividends and capital gains for each year. The true impact of this is not obvious until you get a tax bill for gains that you did not enjoy, which can happen when you buy into a fund late in the year that has realized capital gains. What fund investors sometimes fail to appreciate is that they are taxed both on their own holding period of fund shares and the fund's capital gains distributions determined by the fund's holding period of its investments. For example, if ABC tech fund bought Google stock several years ago for $100/share, and sold it for $500/share in the same year you bought into the ABC fund, then you will receive a \"\"capital gains distribution\"\" on your 1099 that will include some dollar amount, which is considered your share of that long-term profit for tax purposes. The amount is not customized for your holding period, capital gains are distributed pro-rata among all current fund shareholders as of the ex-distribution date. Morningstar tracks this as Potential Capital Gains Exposure and so there is a way to check this possibility before investing. Funds who have unsold losers in their portfolio are also affected by these same rules, have been called \"\"free rides\"\" because those funds, if they find some winners, will have losers that they can sell simultaneously with the winners to remain tax neutral. See \"\"On the Lookout for Tax Traps and Free Riders\"\", Morningstar, pdf In contrast, buying-and-holding a portfolio does not attract any capital gains taxes until the stocks in the portfolio are sold at a profit. A fund often is actively managed. That is, experts will alter the portfolio from time to time or advise the fund to buy or sell particular investments. Note however, that even the experts are required to tell you that \"\"past performance is no guarantee of future results.\"\"\"" }, { "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": "49235", "title": "", "text": "\"As others have alluded to but haven't said due to the lack of reputation points to spare, you can take advantage of oil prices by leveraging up and using as much credit and margin as the banks and brokerages (respectively) will lend you. People assume that the correct answer on this forum has to masquerade as conservative financial advice, and this is not advice nor conservative. Futures contracts are readily available, but they are expensive to obtain (like a minimum entry of $4,450). But if this expense is no such object to you then you can then obtain this contract which is actually worth 20x that and experience the price appreciation and depreciation of the whole contract. The concept is similar to a downpayment on a mortgage. You assume \"\"rock bottom\"\" oil prices, but fortunately for you, futures contracts will allow you to quickly change your bets from future price appreciation and allow you to speculate on future price depreciation. So although the union workers will be protesting full time after the drilling company lays them off, you will still be getting wealthier. Long Options. These are the best. The difference with options, amongst other speculation products, is that options require the least amount of capital risk for the greatest reward. With futures, or with trading shares of an ETF (especially on margin), you have to put up a lot of capital, and if the market does not go your desired direction, then will lose a lot. And on margin products you can lose more than you put in. Being long options does not come with these dilemmas. A long march 2015 call option on USO ETF can currently be bought for less than $200 of actual cash (ie. the trading quote will be less than $2.00, but this will cost you less than $200), and will be worth $1000 on a very modest rebound in prices. The most you can lose is the $200 for the contract. Compared to $4450 on the futures, or $100,000 (that you don't have) in the futures market if oil really moves against you, or compared to whatever large amount of cash needed to actually buy shares of an ETF needed to make any decent return. These are the most lucrative (and fun and exhilarating and ) ways to take advantage of rock bottom oil prices, as an individual.\"" }, { "docid": "478509", "title": "", "text": "Adding international bonds to an individual investor's portfolio is a controversial subject. On top of the standard risks of bonds you are adding country specific risk, currency risk and diversifying your individual company risk. In theory many of these risks should be rewarded but the data are noisy at best and adding risk like developed currency risk may not be rewarded at all. Also, most of the risk and diversification mentioned above are already added by international stocks. Depending on your home country adding international or emerging market stock etfs only add a few extra bps of fees while international bond etfs can add 30-100bps of fees over their domestic versions. This is a fairly high bar for adding this type of diversification. US bonds for foreign investors are a possible exception to the high fees though the government's bonds yield little. If your home currency (or currency union) does not have a deep bond market and/or bonds make up most of your portfolio it is probably worth diversifying a chunk of your bond exposure internationally. Otherwise, you can get most of the diversification much more cheaply by just using international stocks." }, { "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": "317493", "title": "", "text": "I take the route of the tortoise. I subscribe to the adage that you invest in an excellent index fund like VFINX and forget about day trading and trying to make short term gains. Just like I would do at a casino I do gamble a bit for fun. Using etrade you can purchase some Vanguard or a billion of other things. I purchased some Apple, Google, Verizon, and Ford (when it was at 1.3) and all of those have been good investments. However, I don't invest the majority of my money in to individual stocks. I just do this with some 'play' money. After maxing out 401k, etc. I put away my 6 months of safety net in a money mark and put the rest in Vanguard." }, { "docid": "218842", "title": "", "text": "Prices quoted are primarily the offer prices quoted by the numerous market makers on the stock exchange(s) willing to sell you the stock. There is another price which generally isn't seen on these websites, the bid prices, which are lower prices quoted by buyers and market makers willing to buy your shares from you. You wouldn't see those prices, unless you login to your trade terminal. How meaningful are they to you depends on what you want to do buy or sell. If you want to buy then yes they are relevant. But if you want to sell, then no. And remember some websites delay market information by 15 minutes, in case of Google you might have seen that the volume is delayed by 15 minutes. So you need to consider that also while trading, but mayn't be a concern unless you are trying to buy out the company." }, { "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": "458730", "title": "", "text": "I assume you are talking about a publicly traded company listed on a major stock exchange and the buyer resides in the US. (Private companies and non-US locations can change the rules really a lot.) The short answer is no, because the company does not own the stock, various investors do. Each investor has to make an individual decision to sell or not sell. But there are complications. If an entity buys more than about 10% of the company they have to file a declaration with the SEC. The limit can be higher if they file an assertion that they are buying it solely for investment and are not seeking control of the company. If they are seeking control of the company then more paperwork must be filed and if they want to buy the whole company they may be required to make a tender offer where they offer to buy any and all shares at a specific price. If the company being bought is a financial institution, then the buyer may have to declare as a bank holding company and more regulations apply. The company can advise shareholders not to take the tender offer, but they cannot forbid it. So the short answer is, below 10% and for investment purposes only, it is cash and carry: Whoever has the cash gets to carry the stock away. Above that various regulations and declarations apply, but the company still does not have the power prevent the purchase in most circumstances." }, { "docid": "567531", "title": "", "text": "\"Stocks prices are determined whenever a buyer and seller agree to trade at a given price. The company (you use AAPL as an example) doesn't set its own stock price. Rather, the investors set the price every time it trades. There's no \"\"official\"\" price -- just the last trade. Likewise, you can offer to trade a stock at whatever price you want: that's the definition of a limit order. You might not find a willing buyer or seller at that price, but you can certainly open an order. Stock quotes that you get from your broker or a finance web site reflect the price as last traded. These quotes are updated throughout the trading day and the frequency and delay varies amongst quote providers. Like Knuckle-Dragger suggests in the comments, there are ways to get real-time quotes. It's often more helpful to think in terms of bid/ask instead of \"\"official price\"\". See this question for details.\"" }, { "docid": "237323", "title": "", "text": "\"When we say \"\"stock market,\"\" we are usually thinking of the publicly traded stocks, such as the New York Stock Exchange or the NASDAQ. Shares of individual products do not go on these exchanges, only large corporations. You won't see a stock ticker symbol for The Force Awakens or for the iPhone 6s Plus. The reason for this is that when investors buy a stock, they are looking for something that will grow in value theoretically forever. Individual products usually have a limited lifespan. Your movie will (hopefully) generate revenue when it comes out, but after a while sales will slow down after people have seen it. If someone bought a share of stock in a movie on the stock market, they have to realize that eventually the movie will stop making money, and their share of stock won't be worth anything anymore. Instead, people invest in companies that have the potential to make new products, such as Disney or Apple. So if you were envisioning seeing the ticker symbol of your movie going across the screen on CNBC, sorry, that's not going to happen. However, you could theoretically sell shares to individual investors for a percentage of the profit. You figure out how much money you need to create the movie, and estimate how much profit you think the movie will earn. Then you find an investor (or group of investors) that is willing to give you the money you need in exchange for a percentage of the profit. Unlike a stock market investor, these investors won't be looking for the long-term growth potential of the resale value of the stock, but simply a share of the profit.\"" }, { "docid": "385955", "title": "", "text": "\"Comparing index funds to long-term investments in individual companies? A counterintuitive study by Jeremy Siegel addressed a similar question: Would you be better off sticking with the original 500 stocks in the S&P 500, or like an index fund, changing your investments as the index is changed? The study: \"\"Long-Term Returns on the Original S&P 500 Companies\"\" Siegel found that the original 500 (including spinoffs, mergers, etc.) would do slightly better than a changing index. This is likely because the original 500 companies take on a value (rather than growth) aspect as the decades pass, and value stocks outperform growth stocks. Index funds' main strength may be in the behavior change they induce in some investors. To the extent that investors genuinely set-and-forget their index fund investments, they far outperform the average investor who mis-times the market. The average investor enters and leaves the market at the worst times, underperforming by a few percentage points each year on average. This buying-high and selling-low timing behavior damages long-term returns. Paying active management fees (e.g. 1% per year) makes returns worse. Returns compound on themselves, a great benefit to the investor. Fees also compound, to the benefit of someone other than the investor. Paying 1% annually to a financial advisor may further dent long-term returns. But Robert Shiller notes that advisors can dissuade investors from market timing. For clients who will always follow advice, the 1% advisory fee is worth it.\"" }, { "docid": "93882", "title": "", "text": "\"I hope a wall of text with citations qualifies as \"\"relatively easy.\"\" Many of these studies are worth quoting at length. Long story short, a great deal of research has found that actively-managed funds underperform market indexes and passively-managed funds because of their high turnover and higher fees, among other factors. Longer answer: Chris is right in stating that survivorship bias presents a problem for such research; however, there are several academic papers that address the survivorship problem, as well as the wider subject of active vs. passive performance. I'll try to provide a brief summary of some of the relevant literature. The seminal paper that started the debate is Michael Jensen's 1968 paper titled \"\"The Performance of Mutual Funds in the Period 1945-1964\"\". This is the paper where Jensen's alpha, the ubiquitous measure of the performance of mutual fund managers, was first defined. Using a dataset of 115 mutual fund managers, Jensen finds that The evidence on mutual fund performance indicates not only that these 115 mutual funds were on average not able to predict security prices well enough to outperform a buy-the-market-and-hold policy, but also that there is very little evidence that any individual fund was able to do significantly better than that which we expected from mere random chance. Although this paper doesn't address problems of survivorship, it's notable because, among other points, it found that managers who actively picked stocks performed worse even when fund expenses were ignored. Since actively-managed funds tend to have higher expenses than passive funds, the actual picture looks even worse for actively managed funds. A more recent paper on the subject, which draws similar conclusions, is Martin Gruber's 1996 paper \"\"Another puzzle: The growth in actively managed mutual funds\"\". Gruber calls it \"\"a puzzle\"\" that investors still invest in actively-managed funds, given that their performance on average has been inferior to that of index funds. He addresses survivorship bias by tracking funds across the entire sample, including through mergers. Since most mutual funds that disappear are merged into existing funds, he assumes that investors in a fund that disappear choose to continue investing their money in the fund that resulted from the merger. Using this assumption and standard measures of mutual fund performance, Gruber finds that mutual funds underperform an appropriately weighted average of the indices by about 65 basis points per year. Expense ratios for my sample averaged 113 basis points a year. These numbers suggest that active management adds value, but that mutual funds charge the investor more than the value added. Another nice paper is Mark Carhart's 1997 paper \"\"On persistence in mutual fund performance\"\" uses a sample free of survivorship bias because it includes \"\"all known equity funds over this period.\"\" It's worth quoting parts of this paper in full: I demonstrate that expenses have at least a one-for-one negative impact on fund performance, and that turnover also negatively impacts performance. ... Trading reduces performance by approximately 0.95% of the trade's market value. In reference to expense ratios and other fees, Carhart finds that The investment costs of expense ratios, transaction costs, and load fees all have a direct, negative impact on performance. The study also finds that funds with abnormally high returns last year usually have higher-than-expected returns next year, but not in the following years, because of momentum effects. Lest you think the news is all bad, Russ Wermer's 2000 study \"\"Mutual fund performance: An empirical decomposition into stock‐picking talent, style, transactions costs, and expenses\"\" provides an interesting result. He finds that many actively-managed mutual funds hold stocks that outperform the market, even though the net return of the funds themselves underperforms passive funds and the market itself. On a net-return level, the funds underperform broad market indexes by one percent a year. Of the 2.3% difference between the returns on stock holdings and the net returns of the funds, 0.7% per year is due to the lower average returns of the nonstock holdings of the funds during the period (relative to stocks). The remaining 1.6% per year is split almost evenly between the expense ratios and the transaction costs of the funds. The final paper I'll cite is a 2008 paper by Fama and French (of the Fama-French model covered in business schools) titled, appropriately, \"\"Mutual Fund Performance\"\". The paper is pretty technical, and somewhat above my level at this time of night, but the authors state one of their conclusions bluntly quite early on: After costs (that is, in terms of net returns to investors) active investment is a negative sum game. Emphasis mine. In short, expense ratios, transaction costs, and other fees quickly diminish the returns to active investment. They find that The [value-weight] portfolio of mutual funds that invest primarily in U.S. equities is close to the market portfolio, and estimated before fees and expenses, its alpha is close to zero. Since the [value-weight] portfolio of funds produces an α close to zero in gross returns, the alpha estimated on the net returns to investors is negative by about the amount of fees and expenses. This implies that the higher the fees, the farther alpha decreases below zero. Since actively-managed mutual funds tend to have higher expense ratios than passively-managed index funds, it's safe to say that their net return to the investor is worse than a market index itself. I don't know of any free datasets that would allow you to research this, but one highly-regarded commercial dataset is the CRSP Survivor-Bias-Free US Mutual Fund Database from the Center for Research in Security Prices at the University of Chicago. In financial research, CRSP is one of the \"\"gold standards\"\" for historical market data, so if you can access that data (perhaps for a firm or academic institution, if you're affiliated with one that has access), it's one way you could run some numbers yourself.\"" }, { "docid": "293679", "title": "", "text": "Googling vanguard target asset allocation led me to this page on the Bogleheads wiki which has detailed breakdowns of the Target Retirement funds; that page in turn has a link to this Vanguard PDF which goes into a good level of detail on the construction of these funds' portfolios. I excerpt: (To the question of why so much weight in equities:) In our view, two important considerations justify an expectation of an equity risk premium. The first is the historical record: In the past, and in many countries, stock market investors have been rewarded with such a premium. ... Historically, bond returns have lagged equity returns by about 5–6 percentage points, annualized—amounting to an enormous return differential in most circumstances over longer time periods. Consequently, retirement savers investing only in “safe” assets must dramatically increase their savings rates to compensate for the lower expected returns those investments offer. ... The second strategic principle underlying our glidepath construction—that younger investors are better able to withstand risk—recognizes that an individual’s total net worth consists of both their current financial holdings and their future work earnings. For younger individuals, the majority of their ultimate retirement wealth is in the form of what they will earn in the future, or their “human capital.” Therefore, a large commitment to stocks in a younger person’s portfolio may be appropriate to balance and diversify risk exposure to work-related earnings (To the question of how the exact allocations were decided:) As part of the process of evaluating and identifying an appropriate glide path given this theoretical framework, we ran various financial simulations using the Vanguard Capital Markets Model. We examined different risk-reward scenarios and the potential implications of different glide paths and TDF approaches. The PDF is highly readable, I would say, and includes references to quant articles, for those that like that sort of thing." }, { "docid": "133487", "title": "", "text": "\"You can't get much better advice for a young investor than from Warren Buffet. And his advice for investors young and old, is \"\"Put 10% of the cash in short‑term government bonds, and 90% in a very low‑cost S&P 500 index fund.\"\" Or as he said at a different time, \"\"Most investors, both institutional and individual, will find that the best way to own common stocks is through an index fund that charges minimal fees\"\". You are not going to beat the market. So just save as much money as you can, and invest it in something like a Vanguard no-load, low-cost mutual fund. Picking individual stocks is fun, but treat it as fun. Never put in more money than you would waste on fun. Then any upside is pure gravy.\"" }, { "docid": "98345", "title": "", "text": "\"To answer your question: yes, it's often \"\"worth it\"\" to have investments that produce income. Do a Google search for \"\"income vs growth investing\"\" and you'll get a sense for two different approaches to investing in equities. In a nutshell: \"\"growth\"\" stocks (think Netflix, etc) don't pay dividends but are poised to appreciate in price more than \"\"income\"\" stocks (think banks, utilities, etc) that tend to have less volatile prices but pay a consistent dividend. In the long run (decades), growth stocks tend to outperform income stocks. That's why younger investors tend to pick growth stocks while those closer to retirement tend to stick with more stable income-producing portfolio. But there's nothing wrong with a mixed approach, either. I agree with Pete's answer, too.\"" }, { "docid": "88823", "title": "", "text": "\"Vanguard's Admiral shares are like regular (\"\"investor\"\") shares in their funds, only they charge lower expense ratios. They have higher investment minimums, though. (For instance, the Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund has a minimum of $3,000 and an expense ratio of .18% for the Investor Shares class, but a minimum of $10,000 and an expense ratio of .07% for Admiral Shares). If you've bought a bunch of investor shares and now meet the (recently-reduced) minimum for Admiral shares, or if you have some and buy some more investor shares in the future and meet the minimums, you will qualify for a free, no-tax-impact conversion to the Admiral Shares and save yourself some money. For more information, see the Vanguard article on their recent changes to Admiral Shares minimums. Vanguard also offers institutional-class shares with even lower expense ratios than that (with a minimum of $5 million, .06% expense ratios on the same fund). A lot of the costs of operating a fund are per-individual, so they don't need to charge you extra fees for putting in more money after a certain point. They'd rather be competitive and offer it at cost. Vanguard's funds typically have very low expense ratios to begin with. (The investor shares I've been using as an example are advertised as \"\"84% lower than the average expense ratio of funds with similar holdings\"\".) In fact, Vanguard's whole reason for existing is the premise (stated in founder John C Bogle's undergraduate thesis at Princeton) that individuals can generally get better returns by investing in a cheap fund that tracks an index than by investing in mutual funds that try to pick stocks and beat the index and charge you a steep markup. The average real return of the stock market is supposedly something like 4%; even a small-looking percentage like 1% can eat a big portion of that. Over the course of 40 years waiting for retirement, saving 1% on expenses could leave you with something like 50% more money when you've retired. If you are interested in the lower expense ratios of the Admiral share classes but cannot meet the minimums, note that funds which are available as ETFs can be traded from Vanguard brokerage accounts commission-free and typically charge the same expense ratios as the Admiral shares without any minimums (but you need to trade them as individual shares, and this is less convenient than moving them around in specific dollar amounts).\"" }, { "docid": "317365", "title": "", "text": "\"Most of the time* you're selling to other investors, not back to the company. The stock market is a collection of bid (buy offers) and asks (sell offers). When you sell your stock as a retail investor at the \"\"market\"\" price you're essentially just meeting whatever standing bid offers are on the market. For very liquid stocks (e.g. Apple), you can pretty much always get the displayed price because so many stocks are being traded. However during periods of very high volatility or for low-volume stocks, the quoted price may not be indicative of what you actually pay. As an example, let's say you have 5 stocks you're trying to sell and the bid-side order book is 2 stocks for $105, 2 for $100, and 5 for $95. In this scenario the quoted price will be $105 (the best bid price), but if you accept market price you'll settle 2 for 105, 2 for 100, and 1 for 95. After your sell order goes through, the new quoted price will be $95. For high volume stocks, there will usually be so many orders near the midpoint price ($105, in this case) that you won't see any price slippage for small orders. You can also post limit orders, which are essentially open orders waiting to be filled like in the above example. They ensure you get the price you want, but you have no way to guarantee they'll be filled or not. Edit: as a cool example, check out the bitcoin GDAX on coinbase for a live example of what the order book looks like for stocks. You'll see that the price of bitcoin will drift towards whichever direction has the less dense order book (e.g. price drifts upwards when there are far more bids than asks.)\"" }, { "docid": "318140", "title": "", "text": "Yes, it is unreasonable and unsustainable. We all want returns in excess of 15% but even the best and richest investors do not sustain those kinds of returns. You should not invest more than a fraction of your net worth in individual stocks in any case. You should diversify using index funds or ETFs." } ]

[ { "docid": "28314", "title": "", "text": "It's important to understand that, in general, security transactions involve you and a relatively unknown entity with your broker standing in the middle. When you sell through Schwab, Schwab needs to receive the funds from the other side of the transaction. If Schwab gave you access to the funds immediately, it would essentially be a loan until the transaction settles after funds and securities change hands. If Schwab made funds available to you as soon as they were received, it might still be two days until the money is received; because the other side also has three days. Guaranteed one day settlement would have to include receipt of funds from the buyer in one day and Schwab can't control that. You need to remember this transaction likely includes at least one party in addition to you and Schwab. Here's the SEC page related to the three day settlement period, About Settling Trades in Three Days: T+3" } ]

[ { "docid": "252176", "title": "", "text": "\"There are two ways to handle this. The first is that the better brokers, such as Charles Schwab, will produce summaries of your gains and losses (using historical cost information), as well as your trades, on a monthly and annual basis. These summaries are \"\"ready made\"\" for the IRS. More brokers will provide these summaries come 2011. The second is that if you are a \"\"frequent trader\"\" (see IRS rulings for what constitutes one), then they'll allow you to use the net worth method of accounting. That is, you take the account balance at the end of the year, subtract the beginning balance, adjust the value up for withdrawals and down for infusions, and the summary is your gain or loss. A third way is to do all your trading in say, an IRA, which is taxed on distribution, not on stock sales.\"" }, { "docid": "528699", "title": "", "text": "There is Free employer money on both sides of the tax fence for some employees. On the pretax side, your employer may provide you a match. If so, invest the maximum to get 100% of the match. On the after tax side, many companies offers a 15% discount on ESPP plans and a one year hold. My wife has such an employer. The one year hold is fine because it allows us to be taxed at Long Term Capital gains if the stock goes up which is lower than our current income bracket. After creating a seasoned pool of stocks that we could sell after the one year hold, we are then able to sell the same number of stocks purchased each month. This provides a 17.6% guaranteed gain on a monthly basis. How much would you purchase if you had a guaranteed 17.6% return. Our answer is 15% (our maximum allowed). The other trick is that while the employer is collecting the money, you will purchase the stock at the lowest day of the period. You will usually sell for even more than the purchase price unless the day purchased was the lowest day of month. The trick is to reinvest the money in tax free investments to balance out the pretax investing. Never leave the money in the plan. That is too much risk." }, { "docid": "137465", "title": "", "text": "I'm fairly convinced there is no difference whatsoever between dividend payment and capital appreciation. It only makes financial sense for the stock price to be decreased by the dividend payment so over the course of any specified time interval, without the dividend the stock price would have been that much higher were the dividends not paid. Total return is equal. I think this is like so many things in finance that seem different but actually aren't. If a stock does not pay a dividend, you can synthetically create a dividend by periodically selling shares. Doing this would incur periodic trade commissions, however. That does seem like a loss to the investor. For this reason, I do see some real benefit to a dividend. I'd rather get a check in the mail than I would have to pay a trade commission, which would offset a percentage of the dividend. Does anybody know if there are other hidden fees associated with dividend payments that might offset the trade commissions? One thought I had was fees to the company to establish and maintain a dividend-payment program. Are there significant administrative fees, banking fees, etc. to the company that materially decrease its value? Even if this were the case, I don't know how I'd detect or measure it because there's such a loose association between many corporate financials (e.g. cash on hand) and stock price." }, { "docid": "239334", "title": "", "text": "\"I have an account with ETrade. Earlier this week I got an offer to participate in the IPO proper (at the IPO price). If Charles Schwab doesn't give you the opportunity, that's a shortcoming of them as a brokerage firm; there are definitely ways for retail investors to invest in it, wise investment or no. (Okay, technically it wasn't an offer to participate, it was a notice that participation was possibly available, various securities-law disclaimers etc withstanding. \"\"This Web site is neither an offer to sell nor a solicitation to buy these securities. The offer is by prospectus only. This Web site contains a preliminary prospectus for each offering.\"\" etc etc).\"" }, { "docid": "397450", "title": "", "text": "The CEO of a public company can, and often does, buy (and sell) the stock of his company. In fact, frequently the stock of the company is part of the compensation for the CEO. What makes this legal and fair is that the CEO files with the SEC an announcement before he buys (or sells) the stock. These announcements allow us 'in the dark' people enough warning ahead of time. See, for example, the trades of UTX stock by their public officers. As for trading on information about other companies, if I am not mistaken... that is why Martha Stewart wound up in prison. So, yeah, it does happen. I hope it is caught more often than not. On a related note, have you seen the movie 'Wall Street' with Charlie Sheen and Michael Douglas?" }, { "docid": "363043", "title": "", "text": "\"A covered call risks the disparity between the purchase price and the potential forced or \"\"called\"\" sale price less the premium received. So buy a stock for $10.00 believing it will drop you or not rise above $14.00 for a given period of days. You sell a call for a $1.00 agreeing to sell your stock for $14.00 and your wrong...the stock rises and at 14.00 or above during the option period the person who paid you the $1.00 premium gets the stock for a net effective price of $15.00. You have a gain of 5$. Your hypothecated loss is unlimited in that the stock could go to $1mil a share. That loss is an opportunity loss you still had a modest profit in actual $. The naked call is a different beast. you get the 1.00 in commission to sell a stock you don't own but must pay for that right. so lets say you net .75 in commission per share after your sell the option. as long as the stock trades below $14.00 during the period of the option you sold your golden. It rises above the strike price you must now buy that stock at market to fill the order when the counter party choses to exercise the option which results in a REAL loss of 100% of the stocks market price less the .75 a share you made. in the scenarios a 1000 shares that for up $30.00 a share over the strike price make you $5,000 in a covered call and lose you $29,250 in a naked call.Naked calls are speculative. Covered calls are strategic.\"" }, { "docid": "287239", "title": "", "text": "\"Penny stocks are only appealing to the brokers who sell the penny stocks and the companies selling \"\"penny stock signals!\"\". Generally penny stocks provide abysmal returns to the average investor (you or me). In \"\"The Missing Risk Premium\"\", Falkenstein does a quick overview on average returns to penny stock investors citing the following paper \"\"Do Investors Overpay for Stocks with Lottery-Like Payoffs? An Examination of the Returns on OTC Stocks\"\". Over the 2000 to 2009 time period, average investors lost nearly half their investment. A comparable investment in the S&P over this period would have been flat see here. There is a good table in the book/paper showing that the average annual return for stocks priced at either a penny or ten cents range from -10 percent (for medium volume) to -30% to -40% for low or high volume. A different paper, \"\"Too Good to Ignore? A Primer on Listed Penny Stocks\"\" that cites the one above finds that listed, as opposed to OTC \"\"Pink Sheet\"\" penny stocks\"\", have better returns, but provide no premium for the additional risk and low liquidity. The best advice here is that there is no \"\"quick win\"\" in penny stocks. These act more like lottery tickets and are not appropriate for the average investor. Stear clear!\"" }, { "docid": "525527", "title": "", "text": "\"There is no unique identifier that exists to identify specific shares of a stock. Just like money in the bank, there is no real reason to identify which exact dollar bills belong to me or you, so long as there is a record that I own X bills and I can access them when I want. (Of course, unlike banks, there is still a 1:1 relationship between the amount I should own and the amount they actually hold). If I may reach a bit, the question that I assume you are asking is how are shared actually tracked, transferred, and recorded so that I know for certain that I traded you 20 Microsoft shares yesterday and they are now officially yours, given that it's all digital. While you can technically try and request a physical share certificate, it's very cumbersome to handle and transfer in that form. Ownership of shares themselves are tracked for brokerage firms (in the case of retail trading, which I assume is the context of this question as we're discussion personal finance). Your broker has a record of how many shares of X, Y, and Z you own, when you bought each share and for how much, and while you are the beneficial owner of record (you get dividends, voting rights, etc.) your brokerage is the one who is \"\"holding\"\" the shares. When you buy or sell a stock and you are matched with a counterparty (the process of which is beyond the scope of this question) then a process of settlement comes into play. In the US, settlement takes 3 working days to process, and technically ownership does not transfer until the 3rd day after the trade is made, though things like margin accounts will allow you to effectively act as if you own the shares immediately after a buy/sell order is filled. Settlement in the US is done by a sole source, the Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (DTCC). This is where retail and institutional trade all go to be sorted, checked and confirmed, and ultimately returned to the safekeeping of their new owners' representatives (your brokerage). Interestingly, the DTCC is also the central custodian for shares both physical and virtual, and that is where the shares of stock ultimately reside.\"" }, { "docid": "144349", "title": "", "text": "Depends on what you are, an investor or a speculator. An investor will look at an 'indefinite' investment period. A speculator will be after a fast buck. If you are an investor, buy your stock once as that will cost less commissions. After all, you'll sell your stock in 10, 15, 20 years." }, { "docid": "451794", "title": "", "text": "My former accountant, used to provide this service as part of him doing my taxes. During the off season, he would provide a planning session and he would review strategies that I might look into. Since he did not make any money off of providing investments, he was about as unbiased as one could be. However, something like that might not be enough for you guys. You could go with someone online, Scottrade is going into the business of providing advice, as well as Charles Schwab or Fidelity, but you might need someone more personal. In that case, I would use my network. Talk to people, ask who they use, like, and respect. I would say it is very easy to find mediocre investment advisers, the good ones are hard. I would look for one that teaches. It is very easy to tell someone what to do, much harder to teach them what is the right thing. One thing that is easy about your situation: Planning to buy a home. Put money for a down payment in a high interest savings account. What I mean by high interest, is they still pay almost nothing. You can't really make a mistake. If you find one with .5% instead of .85%, what is the real difference after 5 years? About $180?" }, { "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": "348445", "title": "", "text": "In short (pun intended), the shareholder lending the shares does not believe that the shares will fall, even though the potential investor does. The shareholder believes that the shares will rise. Because the two individuals believe that a different outcome will occur, they are able to make a trade. By using the available data in the market, they have arrived at a particular conclusion of the fair price for the trade, but each individual wants to be on the other side of it. Consider a simpler form of your question: Why would a shareholder agree to sell his/her shares? Why don't they just wait to sell, when the price is higher? After all, that is why the buyer wants to purchase the shares. On review, I realize I've only stated here why the original shareholder wouldn't simply sell and rebuy the share themselves (because they have a different view of the market). As to why they would actually allow the trade to occur - Zak (and other answers) point out that the shares being lent are compensated for by an initial fee on the transaction + the chance for interest during the period that the shares are owed for." }, { "docid": "417133", "title": "", "text": "I am using my debit card regularly: in ATM's with a pin, in stores with my signature, and online. But later you say But from what I recall from starting my own business (a LONG time ago), for debit cards there's only a per-transaction fee of like $0.25, not a percentage cut. Only pin transactions have just a per-transaction fee paid by you to the merchant (and you are reimbursed by Schwab). If you use your card with just a signature or online without a pin, then it is a credit transaction from the merchant's perspective. The merchant pays a fee and Schwab gets its cut of that. So for two of the transaction types that you describe, the merchant pays Schwab (indirectly) out of your payment. Only when you enter your pin does it process as a debit transaction where Schwab pays the merchant. Because check cards withdraw the money from your account immediately, you don't even get the twenty to fifty day grace period. So those merchant fees are pure profit for Schwab, offsetting the loss from the ATM fees. You claim $4-5k in fees at $.25 each. That's sixteen to twenty thousand transactions. Assuming that several is four to five years, that's more than ten transactions a day. That seems like a lot. I can see three for meals, one for miscellaneous, and maybe some shopping. But if I go shopping one day, I don't normally go again for a while. I have trouble seeing a consistent average of five or more transactions a day. Even if we use just the higher ATM fees (e.g. $2), that's still more than a transaction a day. That's an extreme level of usage, particularly for someone who also makes frequent purchases via card. I haven't done any other business with them. I find this confusing. How does money get into your account? At some point, you must have deposited money into the account. You can't debit from an account without a positive balance. So you must have done or be doing some kind of business with them. If nothing else, they can invest the balance that you deposit. Note that they make a profit off such investments. They share some of that profit with you in the form of interest, but not that much really. Of course, Schwab may still be losing money on your transactions. We can't really tell without more information on how much of each transaction type you do and how much of a balance you maintain. Perhaps they are hoping that you will do other, more profitable, activities in the future. I doubt there are that many Schwab customers like you describe yourself. As best I've been able to see, they advertise their banking services just to investment customers. So it's unlikely that many customers who don't use their investment services use their banking services just for ATM reimbursements." }, { "docid": "36193", "title": "", "text": "At the bottom of the page you linked to, NASDAQ provides a link to this page on nasdaqtrader.com, which states Each FINRA member firm is required to report its “total” short interest positions in all customer and proprietary accounts in NASDAQ-listed securities twice a month. These reports are used to calculate short interest in NASDAQ stocks. FINRA member firms are required to report their short positions as of settlement on (1) the 15th of each month, or the preceding business day if the 15th is not a business day, and (2) as of settlement on the last business day of the month.* The reports must be filed by the second business day after the reporting settlement date. FINRA compiles the short interest data and provides it for publication on the 8th business day after the reporting settlement date. The dates you are seeing are the dates the member firms settled their trades. In general (also from nasdaq.com), the settlement date is The date on which payment is made to settle a trade. For stocks traded on US exchanges, settlement is currently three business days after the trade." }, { "docid": "403755", "title": "", "text": "\"1) When it says \"\"an investment or mutual fund\"\", is a mutual fund not an investment? If no, what is the definition of an investment? A mutual fund is indeed an investment. The article probably mentions mutual funds separately from other investments because it is not uncommon for mutual funds to give you the option to automatically reinvest dividends and capital gains. 2) When it says \"\"In terms of stocks\"\", why does it only mention distribution of dividends but not distribution of capital gains? Since distributions are received as cash deposits they can be used to buy more of the stock. Capital gains, on the other hand, occur when an asset increases in value. These gains are realized when the asset is sold. In the case of stocks, reinvestment of capital gains doesn't make much sense since buying more stock after selling it to realize capital gains results in you owning as much stock as you had before you realized the gains. 3) When it says \"\"In terms of mutual funds\"\", it says about \"\"the reinvestment of distributions and dividends\"\". Does \"\"distributions\"\" not include distributions of \"\"dividends\"\"? why does it mention \"\"distributions\"\" parallel to \"\"dividends\"\"? Used in this setting, dividend and distribution are synonymous, which is highlighted by the way they are used in parallel. 4) Does reinvestment only apply to interest or dividends, but not to capital gain? Reinvestment only applies to dividends in the case of stocks. Mutual funds must distribute capital gains to shareholders, making these distributions essentially cash dividends, usually as a special end of year distribution. If you've requested automatic reinvestment, the fund will buy more shares with these capital gain distributions as well.\"" }, { "docid": "213310", "title": "", "text": "\"TLDR: Yes you can. That is quite a steep price to pay for a trade. I've used TradeKing previously, which would charge you $5 for that same trade. Some other brokers are more or less expensive, and it is normally representative of the service one receives. One option would be Scottrade. While they are much more expensive than TradeKing, they offer a much higher level of service. Even at $17 a trade, you'll save a lot of money over the Edward Jones trade. A big question here is who does your investing now? Most people are pretty horrible at managing their own investments. Some professional advice is probably in order. For most they discover this when their investments are small, mitigating any mistakes made. You don't have that luxury. I would highly recommend making sure you have people that can help you make good decisions. The more I think about it the more I like the move to Scottrade (no affiliation) or one like that (Charles Schwab is another option). With Scottrade you can go into a local branch and talk things over. I think they offer some professional management as well. Schwab will offer the latter but not the former. However you can call them up and talk on the phone. Another option is to go with Fidelity and have them manage at least part of your money. Of course you can always just do a professional, independent money manager. Another option is to renegotiate with Edward Jones. Something like: \"\"Sorry but this is ridiculous, you need to do much better or I am moving all my money.\"\" Its much cheaper to charge you $100 for that same trade than lose the whole account.\"" }, { "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": "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": "189443", "title": "", "text": "Probably not, but they would have to remove old stock from the state after the one year grace period and they may have to entertain suits against them, which would probably end in settlements. In 2016 alone there was over 30 million [paid out in settlements.](https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/prop65/2016-summary-settlements.pdf?) I have read there is somewhat of a cottage industry for those who seek out prop 65 violations just for the purpose of suing the manufacturer. Then there is the cost associated with the maintenance of complying with the ever changing regulations. I'm sure there is more to it but I can see where a company would not want to label there products as cancer causing if it was not necessary. People might also be more hesitant to purchase a product for there household if it's labeled as cancer causing. Additionally, the US has its own hazard communication standards that require manufacturers to label any IARC know carcinogens as such. Edit: Plus Monsanto probably thinks it can do what it wants" } ]

[ { "docid": "506374", "title": "", "text": "Another explanation is that they keep your money three days to make money with it, because they can. The other reasons might have been valid 100 years ago, and no bank would voluntarily cut that down until forced by law. Example: In Europe, bank to bank transfers used to take three days, until a law forced them to give next day, and suddenly it was possible." } ]

[ { "docid": "493012", "title": "", "text": "\"Well, futures don't have a \"\"strike\"\" like an option - the price represents how much you're obligated to buy/sell the index for at a specified date in the future. You are correct that there's no cost to enter a contract (though there may be broker fees and margin payments). Any difference between the contract price and the price of the index at settlement is what is exchanged at settlement. It's analogous to the bid/ask on a stock - the bid price represents the price at which someone is willing to \"\"buy\"\" a futures contract (meaning enter into a long position) and the ask is how much someone is willing to \"\"sell\"\" a contract. So if you want to take a long position on S&P500 mini futures you'd have to enter in at the \"\"ask\"\" price. If the index is above your contract price on the future expiry date you'll make a profit; if it is below the contract price you'll take a loss.\"" }, { "docid": "144349", "title": "", "text": "Depends on what you are, an investor or a speculator. An investor will look at an 'indefinite' investment period. A speculator will be after a fast buck. If you are an investor, buy your stock once as that will cost less commissions. After all, you'll sell your stock in 10, 15, 20 years." }, { "docid": "80789", "title": "", "text": "I got notice from Charles Schwab that the forms weren't being mailed out until the middle of February because, for some reason, the forms were likely to change and rather than mail them out twice, they mailed them out once. Perhaps some state tax laws took effect (such as two Oregon bills regarding tax rates for higher incomes) and they waited on that. While I haven't gotten my forms mailed to me yet, I did go online and get the electronic copies that allowed me to finish my taxes already." }, { "docid": "213310", "title": "", "text": "\"TLDR: Yes you can. That is quite a steep price to pay for a trade. I've used TradeKing previously, which would charge you $5 for that same trade. Some other brokers are more or less expensive, and it is normally representative of the service one receives. One option would be Scottrade. While they are much more expensive than TradeKing, they offer a much higher level of service. Even at $17 a trade, you'll save a lot of money over the Edward Jones trade. A big question here is who does your investing now? Most people are pretty horrible at managing their own investments. Some professional advice is probably in order. For most they discover this when their investments are small, mitigating any mistakes made. You don't have that luxury. I would highly recommend making sure you have people that can help you make good decisions. The more I think about it the more I like the move to Scottrade (no affiliation) or one like that (Charles Schwab is another option). With Scottrade you can go into a local branch and talk things over. I think they offer some professional management as well. Schwab will offer the latter but not the former. However you can call them up and talk on the phone. Another option is to go with Fidelity and have them manage at least part of your money. Of course you can always just do a professional, independent money manager. Another option is to renegotiate with Edward Jones. Something like: \"\"Sorry but this is ridiculous, you need to do much better or I am moving all my money.\"\" Its much cheaper to charge you $100 for that same trade than lose the whole account.\"" }, { "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": "239334", "title": "", "text": "\"I have an account with ETrade. Earlier this week I got an offer to participate in the IPO proper (at the IPO price). If Charles Schwab doesn't give you the opportunity, that's a shortcoming of them as a brokerage firm; there are definitely ways for retail investors to invest in it, wise investment or no. (Okay, technically it wasn't an offer to participate, it was a notice that participation was possibly available, various securities-law disclaimers etc withstanding. \"\"This Web site is neither an offer to sell nor a solicitation to buy these securities. The offer is by prospectus only. This Web site contains a preliminary prospectus for each offering.\"\" etc etc).\"" }, { "docid": "121465", "title": "", "text": "\"Securities clearing and settlement is a complex topic - you can start by browsing relevant Wikipedia articles, and (given sufficient quantities of masochism and strong coffee) progress to entire technical books. You're correct - modern trade settlement systems are electronic and heavily streamlined. However, you're never going to see people hand over assets until they're sure that payment has cleared - given current payment systems, that means the fastest settlement time is going to be the next business day (so-called T+1 settlement), which is what's seen for heavily standardized instruments like standard options and government debt securities. Stocks present bigger obstacles. First, the seller has to locate the asset being sold & make sure they have clear title to it... which is tougher than it might seem, given the layers of abstraction/virtualization involved in the chain of ownership & custody, complicated in particular by \"\"rehypothecation\"\" involved in stock borrowing/lending for short sales... especially since stock borrow/lending record-keeping tends to be somewhat slipshod (cf. periodic uproar about \"\"naked shorting\"\" and \"\"failure to deliver\"\"). Second, the seller has to determine what exactly it is that they have sold... which, again, can be tougher than it might seem. You see, stocks are subject to all kinds of corporate actions (e.g. cash distributions, spin-offs, splits, liquidations, delistings...) A particular topic of keen interest is who exactly is entitled to large cash distributions - the buyer or the seller? Depending on the cutoff date (the \"\"ex-dividend date\"\"), the seller may need to deliver to the buyer just the shares of stock, or the shares plus a big chunk of cash - a significant difference in settlement. Determining the precise ex-dividend date (and so what exactly are the assets to be settled) can sometimes be very difficult... it's usually T-2, except in the case of large distributions, which are usually T+1, unless the regulatory authority has neglected to declare an ex-dividend date, in which case it defaults to standard DTC payment policy (i.e. T-2)... I've been involved in a few situations where the brokers involved were clueless, and full settlement of \"\"due bills\"\" for cash distributions to the buyer took several months of hard arguing. So yeah, the brokers want a little time to get their records in order and settle the trade correctly.\"" }, { "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": "41214", "title": "", "text": "The short float ratio and percent change are all calculated based on the short interest (the total number of shares shorted). The short interest data for Nasdaq and NYSE stocks is published every two weeks. NasdaqTrader.com shows the exact dates for when short interest is published for Nasdaq stocks, and also says the following: FINRA member firms are required to report their short positions as of settlement on (1) the 15th of each month, or the preceding business day if the 15th is not a business day, and (2) as of settlement on the last business day of the month.* The reports must be filed by the second business day after the reporting settlement date. FINRA compiles the short interest data and provides it for publication on the 8th business day after the reporting settlement date. The NYSE also shows the exact dates for when short interest is published for NYSE stocks, and those dates are exactly the same as for Nasdaq stocks. Since the short interest is only updated once every 2 weeks, there is no way to see real-time updating of the short float and percent change. That information only gets updated once every 2 weeks - after each publication of the short interest." }, { "docid": "393467", "title": "", "text": "\"If you want to deposit checks or conduct business at a window, you should look at a local savings bank or credit union. Generally, you can find one that will offer \"\"free\"\" checking in exchange for direct deposit or a minimum balance. Some are totally free, but those banks pay zippo for interest. If you don't care about location, I would look at Charles Schwab Bank. I've been using them for a couple of years and have been really satisfied with them. They provide free checking, ATM fee reimbursement, free checks and pre-paid deposit envelopes. You also can easily move money between Schwab brokerage or savings accounts. Other brokers offer similar services as well.\"" }, { "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": "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": "98150", "title": "", "text": "It appears very possible that Google will not have to pay any class C holders the settlement amount, given the structure of the settlement. This is precisely because of the arbitrage opportunity you've highlighted. This idea was mentioned last summer in Dealbreaker. As explained in a Dealbook article: The settlement requires Google to pay the following amounts if, one year from the issuance of the Class C shares, the value diverges according to the following formula: If the C share price is equal to or more than 1 percent, but less than 2 percent, below the A share price, 20 percent of the difference; If the C share price is equal to or more than 2 percent, but less than 3 percent, below the A share price, 40 percent of the difference; If the C share price is equal to or more than 3 percent, but less than 4 percent, below the A share price, 60 percent of the difference; If the C share price is equal to or more than 4 percent, but less than 5 percent, below the A share price, 80 percent of the difference.” If the C share price is equal to or more than 5 percent below the A share price, 100 percent of the difference, up to 5 percent. ... If the Class A shares trade around $450 (after the split/C issuance) and the C shares trade at a 4.5 percent discount during the year (or $429.75 per share), then investors expect a payment of: 80 percent times $450 times 4.5 percent = $16.20. The value of C shares would then be $445.95 ($429.75 plus $16.20). But if this is the new trading value during the year, that’s only a discount of less than 1 percent to the A shares. So no payment would be made. But if no payment is made, we are back to the full discount and this continues ad infinitum. In other words, the value of a stock can be displayed as: {equity value} + {dividend value} + {voting value} + {settlement value} = {total share value} If we ignore dividend and voting values, and ignore premiums and discounts for risk and so forth, then the value of a share is basic equity value plus anticipated settlement payoff. The Google Class C settlement is structured to reduce the payoff as the value converges. And the practice of arbitrage guarantees (if you buy into at least semi-strong EMH) that the price of C shares will be shored up by arbitrageurs that want the payoff. The voting value of GOOGL is effectively zero, since the non-traded Class B shares control all company decisions. So the value of the Class A GOOGL voting is virtually zero for the time being. The only divergence between GOOGL and GOOG price is dividends (which I believe is supposed to be the same) and the settlement payoff. Somebody who places zero value on the vote and who expects dividend difference to be zero should always prefer to buy GOOG to GOOGL until the price is equal, disregarding the settlement. So technically someone is better off owning GOOG, if dividends are the same and market prices are equal, just because the vote is worthless and the nonzero chance of a future settlement payoff is gravy. The arbitrage itself is present because a share that costs (as in the article) $429.75 is worth $445.95 if the settlement pays out at that rate. The stable equilibrium is probably either just before or just after the threshold where the settlement pays off, depending on how reliably arbitrageurs can predict the movement of GOOG and GOOGL. If I can buy a given stock for X but know that it's worth X+1, then I'm willing to pay up to X+1. In the google case, the GOOG stock is worth X+S, where S is an uncertain settlement payment that could be zero or could be substantial. We have six tiers of S (counting zero payoff), so that the price is likely to follow a pattern from X to X+S5 to X-S5+S4 to X-S4+S3, and climbing the tier ladder until it lands in the frontier between X+S1 and X+S0. Every time it jumps into X+S1, people should be willing to pay that new amount for GOOG, so the price moves out of payoff range and into X+S0, where people will only pay X. I'm actually simplifying here, since technically this is all based on future expectations. So the actual price you'd pay is expressed thus: {resale value of GOOG before settlement payoff = X} + ( {expectation that settlement payoff will pay 100% of difference = S5} * {expected nominal difference between GOOG and GOOGL = D} ) + ({S4} * {80% D}) + ({S3} * {60% D}) + ({S2} * {40% D}) + ({S1} * {20% D}) + ({S0} * {0% D}) = {price willing to pay for Class C GOOG = P} Plus you'd technically have to present value the whole thing for the time horizon, since the payoff is in a year. Note that I've shunted any voting/dividend analysis into X. It's reasonable to thing that S5, S4, S3, and maybe S2 are nearly zero, given the open arbitrage opportunity. And we know that S0 times 0% of D is zero. So the real analysis, again ignoring PV, is thus: P = X + (S1*D) Which is a long way of saying: what are the odds that GOOG will happen to be worth no more than 99% of GOOGL on the payoff determination date?" }, { "docid": "30070", "title": "", "text": "I often sell covered calls, and if they are in the money, let the stock go. I am charged the same fee as if I sold online ($9, I use Schwab) which is better than buying back the option if I'm ok to sell the stock. In my case, If the option is slightly in the money, and I see the options are priced well, i.e. I'd do another covered call anyway, I sometimes buy the option and sell the one a year out. I prefer to do this in my IRA account as the trading creates no tax issue." }, { "docid": "6471", "title": "", "text": "Do not take the cash! You might be able to leave the money with the large company. Ask the HR people at the company. If you are satisfied with their work, no sense leaving if you don't have to. I have coworkers that have 401K all over from all the buyouts the company went through. If you don't want to leave it behind, do a rollover into your own account with a low cost carrier. (Vanguard, Fidelity and Charles Schwab are popular) Whoever you choose for your own account can help you rollover the funds without penalty. (Schwab helped me over the phone, it was pretty simple) More about rolling over a Roth 401K" }, { "docid": "107462", "title": "", "text": "So, why or why should I not invest in the cheaper index fund? They are both same, one is not cheaper than other. You get something that is worth $1000. To give a simple illustration; There is an item for $100, Vanguard creates 10 Units out of this so price per unit is $10. Schwab creates 25 units out of this, so the per unit price is $4. Now if you are looking at investing $20; with Vanguard you would get 2 units, with Schwab you would get 5 units. This does not mean one is cheaper than other. Both are at the same value of $20. The Factors you need to consider are; Related question What differentiates index funds and ETFs?" }, { "docid": "232540", "title": "", "text": "Well it would appear that you had a wash sale that canceled out a loss position. Without seeing the entire report, I couldn't tell you exactly what was happening or how you triggered § 1091. But just from the excerpted images, it appears as though your purchase of stock was layered into multiple tranches - perhaps you acquired more of the stock in the 61-day period than you sold (possibly because of a prior holding). If in the 61-day period around the sale of stock (30 days before and 30 days after), you also acquire the same stock (including by contract or option), then it washes out your loss. If you held your stock for a while, then in a 61-day period bought more, and sold some, then any loss would be washed out by the acquisition. Of course it is also a wash sale if your purchase of the stock follows your sale, rather than precedes it. Your disallowed loss goes into the basis of your stock holding, so will be meaningful when you do have a true economic sale of that stock. From IRS Pub 550: A wash sale occurs when you sell or trade stock or securities at a loss and within 30 days before or after the sale you: Buy substantially identical stock or securities, Acquire substantially identical stock or securities in a fully taxable trade, Acquire a contract or option to buy substantially identical stock or securities, or Acquire substantially identical stock for your individual retirement account (IRA) or Roth IRA. If you sell stock and your spouse or a corporation you control buys substantially identical stock, you also have a wash sale. Looking at your excerpted account images, we can see a number of positions sold at a loss (sale proceeds less than basis) but each one is adjusted to a zero loss. I suspect the fuller picture of your account history and portfolio will show a more complicated and longer history with this particular stock. That is likely the source of the wash sale disallowed loss notations. You might be able to confirm that all the added numbers are appearing in your current basis in this stock (or were reflected upon your final exit from the stock)." }, { "docid": "346398", "title": "", "text": "Do not do investing with a bank. Do investing with a low cost investment company like Vanguard, Fidelity, or Charles Schwab. The lower the expenses of the fund the better. The additional money your account earns because of lower overhead expenses is so dramatic over the course of your investing it is mind boggling to me. The lower the expenses, the more of your money you keep, which feeds the power of compound interest. http://www.fool.com/investing/mutual-funds/2008/09/03/this-fund-charges-what.aspx" }, { "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": "93231", "title": "", "text": "quid's answer explains the settlement period well. However, it should be noted that you can avoid the settlement period by opening a margin account. Any specific broker like Schwab may or may not offer margin accounts. Margin accounts allow you to borrow money to avoid the settlement period or to buy more securities than you can actually afford. Note that if you buy more securities than you can afford using margin, you expose yourself to losses potentially larger than your initial investment. If you fund your account with $50,000 and use margin to purchase $80,000 of stock which then drops in value by 80% you will have lost $64,000 and owe the broker $14,000 plus fees." } ]

[ { "docid": "463449", "title": "", "text": "\"Like a lot of businesses, they win on the averages, which means lucrative customers subsidize the money-losers. This is par for the course. It's the health club model. The people who show up everyday are subsidized by the people who never show but are too guilty to cancel. When I sent 2 DVDs a day to Netflix, they lost their shirt on me, and made it up on the customers who don't. In those \"\"free to play\"\" MMOs, actually 95-99% of the players never pay and are carried by the 1-5% who spend significantly. In business thinking, the overall marketing cost of acquiring a new customer is pretty big - $50 to $500. On the other side of the credit card swiper, they pay $600 bounty for new merchant customers - there are salesmen who live on converting 2-3 merchants a month. That's because as a rule, customers tend to lock-in. That's why dot-coms lose millions for years giving you a free service. Eventually they figure out a revenue model, and you stay with it despite the new ads, because changing is inconvenient. When you want to do a banking transaction, they must provide the means to do that. Normal banks have the staggering cost of a huge network of branch offices where you can walk in and hand a check to a teller. The whole point of an ATM is to reduce the cost of that. Chase has 3 staffed locations in my zipcode and 6 ATMs. Schwab has 3 locations in my greater metro, which contains over 400 zipcodes. If you're in a one-horse town like French Lick, Bandera or Detroit, no Schwab for miles. So for Schwab, a $3 ATM fee isn't expensive, it's cheap - compared to the cost of serving you any other way. There may also be behind-the-scenes agreements where the bank that charged you $3 refunds some of it to Schwab after they refund you. It doesn't really cost $3 to do a foreign ATM transaction. Most debit cards have a Visa or Mastercard logo. Many places will let you run it as an ATM card with a PIN entry. However everyone who takes Visa/MC must take it as a credit card using a signature. In that case, the merchant pays 2-10% depending on several factors.** Of this, about 1.4% goes to the issuing bank. This is meant to cover the bank's risk of credit card defaults. But drawing from a bank account where they can decline if the money isn't there, that risk is low so it's mostly gravy. You may find Schwab is doing OK on that alone. Also, don't use debit cards at any but the most trusted shops -- unless you fully understand how, in fraud situations, credit cards and debit cards compare -- and are comfortable with the increased risks. ** there are literally dozens of micro-fees depending on their volume, swipe vs chip, ATM vs credit, rewards cards, fixed vs online vs mobile, etc. (Home Depot does OK, the food vendor at the Renaissance Faire gets slaughtered). This kind of horsepuckey is why small-vendor services like Square are becoming hugely popular; they flat-rate everything at around 2.7%. Yay!\"" }, { "docid": "393467", "title": "", "text": "\"If you want to deposit checks or conduct business at a window, you should look at a local savings bank or credit union. Generally, you can find one that will offer \"\"free\"\" checking in exchange for direct deposit or a minimum balance. Some are totally free, but those banks pay zippo for interest. If you don't care about location, I would look at Charles Schwab Bank. I've been using them for a couple of years and have been really satisfied with them. They provide free checking, ATM fee reimbursement, free checks and pre-paid deposit envelopes. You also can easily move money between Schwab brokerage or savings accounts. Other brokers offer similar services as well.\"" }, { "docid": "31664", "title": "", "text": "\"If they made deposits 20 years ago, and none since, the S&P is up over 300% since then. i.e. a return of $40,000 on $10,000 invested. We wouldn't expect to see that full return, as a prudent mix of stock and bonds (or any treasury bills/CDs, etc) would lower the overall return during this period. Advice \"\"Transfer the money, directly to an IRA at a broker, Fidelity, Schwab, Vanguard, etc.\"\" For most people, going after the advisor isn't worth it, unless the sums are large and the poor management, pretty clear. The lesson for readers here - monitor your investments. Ask questions. It's not about \"\"beating the market\"\" which can actually create more risk, but about understanding the returns you see, and the fees you are spending. The mistake didn't occur at the time the money was invested, but every year it wasn't monitored.\"" }, { "docid": "187729", "title": "", "text": "The commenters who referred you to the prisoner's dilemma are exactly correct, but I wanted to give a more detailed explanation because I find game theory quite interesting. The prisoner's dilemma is a classic scenario in game theory where even though it's in the best interests of two or more players to cooperate, they fail to do so. Wikipedia has a simple example using prisoners, but I'll use a simple example using Fidel and Charles, who are fund managers at Fidelity and Charles Schwab, respectively. To make the table shorter, I abbreviated a bit: INC = increase fees, KEEP=keep fees the same, DEC=decrease fees. Here is the dilemma itself, in the table that shows the resulting market shares if each fund manager follows the course of action in question. While this example isn't mathematically rigorous because I completely fabricated the numbers, it makes a good example. The most profitable course of action would be both fund managers agreeing to increase their fees, which would keep their market shares the same but increase their profits as they earn more fees. However, this won't happen for several reasons. Because economies of scale exist in the market for investment funds, it's reasonable to assume in a simple example that as funds grow larger, their costs decrease, so even though a fund manager decreases his fees (betraying the other players), this decrease won't be enough to reduce their profits. In fact, the increased market share resulting from such a decrease may well dominate the decreased fees and lead to higher profits. The prisoner's dilemma is highly applicable to markets such as these because they exist as oligopolies, i.e. markets where a relatively small number of established sellers possess considerable market power. If you actually wanted to model the market for donor-advised funds using game theory, you need to take a few more things into account. Obviously there are more than two firms. It's probably a valid assumption that the market is an oligopoly with significant economies of scale, but I haven't researched this extensively. There is more than one time period, so some form of the iterated prisoner's dilemma is needed. The market for donor-advised funds is also complicated by the fact that these are philanthropic funds. This may introduce tax implications or the problem of goodwill and institutional opinion of these funds. Although both funds increasing their fees may increase their profits in theory, institutional investors may look on this as a pure profit-seeking and take their funds elsewhere. For example, they may choose to invest in smaller funds with higher fees but better reputations. While reputation is important for any company, it might make more of a difference when the fund/investment vehicle is philanthropic in nature. I am by no means an expert on game theory, so I'm sure there are other nuances to the situation that I'm unaware of." }, { "docid": "13885", "title": "", "text": "You could buy shares of an Exchange-Traded Fund (ETF) based on the price of gold, like GLD, IAU, or SGOL. You can invest in this fund through almost any brokerage firm, e.g. Fidelity, Etrade, Scotttrade, TD Ameritrade, Charles Schwab, ShareBuilder, etc. Keep in mind that you'll still have to pay a commission and fees when purchasing an ETF, but it will almost certainly be less than paying the markup or storage fees of buying the physical commodity directly. An ETF trades exactly like a stock, on an exchange, with a ticker symbol as noted above. The commission will apply the same as any stock trade, and the price will reflect some fraction of an ounce of gold, for the GLD, it started as .1oz, but fees have been applied over the years, so it's a bit less. You could also invest in PHYS, which is a closed-end mutual fund that allows investors to trade their shares for 400-ounce gold bars. However, because the fund is closed-end, it may trade at a significant premium or discount compared to the actual price of gold for supply and demand reasons. Also, keep in mind that investing in gold will never be the same as depositing your money in the bank. In the United States, money stored in a bank is FDIC-insured up to $250,000, and there are several banks or financial institutions that deposit money in multiple banks to double or triple the effective insurance limit (Fidelity has an account like this, for example). If you invest in gold and the price plunges, you're left with the fair market value of that gold, not your original deposit. Yes, you're hoping the price of your gold investment will increase to at least match inflation, but you're hoping, i.e. speculating, which isn't the same as depositing your money in an insured bank account. If you want to speculate and invest in something with the hope of outpacing inflation, you're likely better off investing in a low-cost index fund of inflation-protected securities (or the S&P500, over the long term) rather than gold. Just to be clear, I'm using the laymen's definition of a speculator, which is someone who engages in risky financial transactions in an attempt to profit from short or medium term fluctuations This is similar to the definition used in some markets, e.g. futures, but in many cases, economists and places like the CFTC define speculators as anyone who doesn't have a position in the underlying security. For example, a farmer selling corn futures is a hedger, while the trading firm purchasing the contracts is a speculator. The trading firm doesn't necessarily have to be actively trading the contract in the short-run; they merely have no position in the underlying commodity." }, { "docid": "179520", "title": "", "text": "Your question is unanswerable as you haven't provided enough information. I.e. If those shares cost $1000 and you have $50000 ( or any number above $1000) of cash available in the account then you can't possibly free ride. I think your understanding of the free ride rule is incorrect. Basically what this rule is stating is that you have to have the cash when the trade is placed in order to settle the trade. Otherwise you are taking on margin (which you can't do in a cash account). So at order entry you have to have the cash to cover the purchase so it's able to be settled. If you do, no problem and you can sell that stock before trade settlement. There is no law that says you have to hold it past trade settlement. However, you cannot spend the same dollar more than once before it settles. This site does a good job explaining this more throughly with examples: http://www.invest-faq.com/articles/trade-day-free-ride.html" }, { "docid": "581866", "title": "", "text": "To try to answer the three explicit questions: Every share of stock is treated proportionately: each share is assigned the same dollar amount of investment (1/176th part of the contribution in the example), and has the same discount amount (15% of $20 or $25, depending on when you sell, usually). So if you immediately sell 120 shares at $25, you have taxable income on the gain for those shares (120*($25-$17)). Either selling immediately or holding for the long term period (12-18 mo) can be advantageous, just in different ways. Selling immediately avoids a risk of a decline in the price of the stock, and allows you to invest elsewhere and earn income on the proceeds for the next 12-18 months that you would not otherwise have had. The downside is that all of your gain ($25-$17 per share) is taxed as ordinary income. Holding for the full period is advantageous in that only the discount (15% of $20 or $25) will be taxed as ordinary income and the rest of the gain (sell price minus $20 or $25) will be taxed at long-term capital gain tax rates, which generally are lower than ordinary rates (all taxes are due in the year you do sell). The catch is you will sell at different price, higher or lower, and thus have a risk of loss (or gain). You will never be (Federally) double taxed in any scenario. The $3000 you put in will not be taxed after all is sold, as it is a return of your capital investment. All money you receive in excess of the $3000 will be taxed, in all scenarios, just potentially at different rates, ordinary or capital gain. (All this ignores AMT considerations, which you likely are not subject to.)" }, { "docid": "553896", "title": "", "text": "Some brokers have a number of shares they can offer their customers, but the small guy will get 100, not as many as they'd like. In the Tech bubble of the late 90's I was able to buy in to many IPOs, but the written deal from the broker is that you could not sell for 30 days or you'd be restricted from IPO purchases for the next 90. No matter what the stock opened at, there were a fair number of stocks thay were below IPO issue price after 30 days had passed. I haven't started looking at IPOs since the tech flameout, but had I gotten in to LinkedIn it would have been at that $45 price. Let's see if it stays at these levels after 30 days. Edit - This is the exact cut/paste from my broker's site : Selling IPO Shares: While XXX customers are always free to sell shares purchased in a public offering at any time, short holding periods of less than 31 calendar days will be a factor in determining whether XXX allocates you shares in future public offerings. Accordingly, if you sell IPO shares purchased in a public offering within 30 calendar days of such purchase, you will be restricted from participating in initial and secondary public offerings through XXX for a period of 3 months. (I deleted the broker name) I honestly don't know if I'd have gotten any LI shares. Next interesting one is Pandora." }, { "docid": "30070", "title": "", "text": "I often sell covered calls, and if they are in the money, let the stock go. I am charged the same fee as if I sold online ($9, I use Schwab) which is better than buying back the option if I'm ok to sell the stock. In my case, If the option is slightly in the money, and I see the options are priced well, i.e. I'd do another covered call anyway, I sometimes buy the option and sell the one a year out. I prefer to do this in my IRA account as the trading creates no tax issue." }, { "docid": "346398", "title": "", "text": "Do not do investing with a bank. Do investing with a low cost investment company like Vanguard, Fidelity, or Charles Schwab. The lower the expenses of the fund the better. The additional money your account earns because of lower overhead expenses is so dramatic over the course of your investing it is mind boggling to me. The lower the expenses, the more of your money you keep, which feeds the power of compound interest. http://www.fool.com/investing/mutual-funds/2008/09/03/this-fund-charges-what.aspx" }, { "docid": "152709", "title": "", "text": "\"Members of the Federal Reserve System keep track of what money a bank has (if it's not in the vault), who owns what shares of stock, who owns what bond, etc. The part of the Federal Reserve System that tracks stock ownership is the Depository Trust Company (DTC). They have a group of subsidiaries that settle various types of security transactions. DTC is a member of the U.S. Federal Reserve System, a limited-purpose trust company under New York State banking law and a registered clearing agency with the Securities and Exchange Commission. There's lots of information on their website describing this process. DTCC's subsidiary, The Depository Trust Company (DTC), established in 1973, was created to reduce costs and provide clearing and settlement efficiencies by immobilizing securities and making \"\"book-entry\"\" changes to ownership of the securities. DTC provides securities movements for NSCC's net settlements1, and settlement for institutional trades (which typically involve money and securities transfers between custodian banks and broker/dealers), as well as money market instruments. Black pools are trades done where the price is not shared with the market. But the DTC is the one who keeps track of who owns which shares. They have records of all net transactions2. The DTC is the counterparty for transactions. When stock moves from one entity to another the DTC is involved. As the central counterparty for the nation's major exchanges and markets, DTCC clears and settles virtually all broker-to-broker equity 1. This is the link that shows that settlements are reported on a \"\"net basis\"\". 2. If broker A sells 1000 shares of something to broker B at 8 and then five minutes later broker B sells the 1000 shares back to A, you cannot be sure that that total volume will be recorded. No net trading took place and there would be fees to pay for no reason if they reported both trades. Note: In dark pool trading quite often the two parties don't know each other. For shares (book-keeping records) to be exchanged it has to be done through a Clearing House.\"" }, { "docid": "476721", "title": "", "text": "There's some risk, but it's quite small: The only catastrophic case I can think of is if the brokerage firm defrauded you about purchasing the assets in the first place; e.g., when you ostensibly put money into a mutual fund, they just pocketed it and displayed a fictitious purchase on their web site. In that case, you'd have no real asset to legally recover. I think the more realistic risks you should be concerned with are: The only major brokerage firm that I'm aware of that accepts liability for theft is Charles Schwab: http://www.schwab.com/public/schwab/nn/legal_compliance/schwabsafe/security_guarantee.html If you're going to diversify for security reasons, be sure to use different passwords, email addresses, and secret question answers on the two accounts." }, { "docid": "403755", "title": "", "text": "\"1) When it says \"\"an investment or mutual fund\"\", is a mutual fund not an investment? If no, what is the definition of an investment? A mutual fund is indeed an investment. The article probably mentions mutual funds separately from other investments because it is not uncommon for mutual funds to give you the option to automatically reinvest dividends and capital gains. 2) When it says \"\"In terms of stocks\"\", why does it only mention distribution of dividends but not distribution of capital gains? Since distributions are received as cash deposits they can be used to buy more of the stock. Capital gains, on the other hand, occur when an asset increases in value. These gains are realized when the asset is sold. In the case of stocks, reinvestment of capital gains doesn't make much sense since buying more stock after selling it to realize capital gains results in you owning as much stock as you had before you realized the gains. 3) When it says \"\"In terms of mutual funds\"\", it says about \"\"the reinvestment of distributions and dividends\"\". Does \"\"distributions\"\" not include distributions of \"\"dividends\"\"? why does it mention \"\"distributions\"\" parallel to \"\"dividends\"\"? Used in this setting, dividend and distribution are synonymous, which is highlighted by the way they are used in parallel. 4) Does reinvestment only apply to interest or dividends, but not to capital gain? Reinvestment only applies to dividends in the case of stocks. Mutual funds must distribute capital gains to shareholders, making these distributions essentially cash dividends, usually as a special end of year distribution. If you've requested automatic reinvestment, the fund will buy more shares with these capital gain distributions as well.\"" }, { "docid": "363043", "title": "", "text": "\"A covered call risks the disparity between the purchase price and the potential forced or \"\"called\"\" sale price less the premium received. So buy a stock for $10.00 believing it will drop you or not rise above $14.00 for a given period of days. You sell a call for a $1.00 agreeing to sell your stock for $14.00 and your wrong...the stock rises and at 14.00 or above during the option period the person who paid you the $1.00 premium gets the stock for a net effective price of $15.00. You have a gain of 5$. Your hypothecated loss is unlimited in that the stock could go to $1mil a share. That loss is an opportunity loss you still had a modest profit in actual $. The naked call is a different beast. you get the 1.00 in commission to sell a stock you don't own but must pay for that right. so lets say you net .75 in commission per share after your sell the option. as long as the stock trades below $14.00 during the period of the option you sold your golden. It rises above the strike price you must now buy that stock at market to fill the order when the counter party choses to exercise the option which results in a REAL loss of 100% of the stocks market price less the .75 a share you made. in the scenarios a 1000 shares that for up $30.00 a share over the strike price make you $5,000 in a covered call and lose you $29,250 in a naked call.Naked calls are speculative. Covered calls are strategic.\"" }, { "docid": "565007", "title": "", "text": "\"In this scenario the date of income is the date on which the contract has been signed, even if you received the actual money (settlement) later. Regardless of the NY special law for residency termination - that is the standard rule for recognition of income during a cash (not installments) sale. The fact that you got the actual money later doesn't matter, which is similar to selling stocks on a public exchange. When you sell stocks through your broker on a public exchange - you still recognize the income on the day of the sale, not on the day of the settlement. This is called \"\"the Constructive Receipt doctrine\"\". The IRS publication 538 has this to say about the constructive receipt: Constructive receipt. Income is constructively received when an amount is credited to your account or made available to you without restriction. You need not have possession of it. If you authorize someone to be your agent and receive income for you, you are considered to have received it when your agent receives it. Income is not constructively received if your control of its receipt is subject to substantial restrictions or limitations. Once you signed the contract, the money has essentially been credited to your account with the counter-party, and unless they're bankrupt or otherwise insolvent - you have no restrictions over it. And also (more specifically for your case): You cannot hold checks or postpone taking possession of similar property from one tax year to another to postpone paying tax on the income. You must report the income in the year the property is received or made available to you without restriction. Timing wire transfer is akin to holding and not depositing a check, from this perspective. So unless there was a restriction that was lifted after you moved out of New York, I doubt you can claim that you couldn't have received it before moving out, i.e.: you have, in fact, constructively received it.\"" }, { "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": "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": "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": "395357", "title": "", "text": "The way I would use it is, every trade done by a broker has a client side and a street side. The client side is for their brokerage account, and the street side is whoever they traded with Say, John Doe calls me at Charles Schwab and wants to buy 100 IBM. I look at the market and decide that the best execution is on Arca. I trade on Arca for the client. Then, I book a client side trade into his account, and a street side trade against Arca. If I myself was a dealer in IBM and executed against my inventory, the street side would basically be internal, booking a trade against my account." } ]

[ { "docid": "156029", "title": "", "text": "That is the standard set by most securities exchanges: T+3 : trades complete three days after the bargain has been struck." } ]

[ { "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": "581866", "title": "", "text": "To try to answer the three explicit questions: Every share of stock is treated proportionately: each share is assigned the same dollar amount of investment (1/176th part of the contribution in the example), and has the same discount amount (15% of $20 or $25, depending on when you sell, usually). So if you immediately sell 120 shares at $25, you have taxable income on the gain for those shares (120*($25-$17)). Either selling immediately or holding for the long term period (12-18 mo) can be advantageous, just in different ways. Selling immediately avoids a risk of a decline in the price of the stock, and allows you to invest elsewhere and earn income on the proceeds for the next 12-18 months that you would not otherwise have had. The downside is that all of your gain ($25-$17 per share) is taxed as ordinary income. Holding for the full period is advantageous in that only the discount (15% of $20 or $25) will be taxed as ordinary income and the rest of the gain (sell price minus $20 or $25) will be taxed at long-term capital gain tax rates, which generally are lower than ordinary rates (all taxes are due in the year you do sell). The catch is you will sell at different price, higher or lower, and thus have a risk of loss (or gain). You will never be (Federally) double taxed in any scenario. The $3000 you put in will not be taxed after all is sold, as it is a return of your capital investment. All money you receive in excess of the $3000 will be taxed, in all scenarios, just potentially at different rates, ordinary or capital gain. (All this ignores AMT considerations, which you likely are not subject to.)" }, { "docid": "348445", "title": "", "text": "In short (pun intended), the shareholder lending the shares does not believe that the shares will fall, even though the potential investor does. The shareholder believes that the shares will rise. Because the two individuals believe that a different outcome will occur, they are able to make a trade. By using the available data in the market, they have arrived at a particular conclusion of the fair price for the trade, but each individual wants to be on the other side of it. Consider a simpler form of your question: Why would a shareholder agree to sell his/her shares? Why don't they just wait to sell, when the price is higher? After all, that is why the buyer wants to purchase the shares. On review, I realize I've only stated here why the original shareholder wouldn't simply sell and rebuy the share themselves (because they have a different view of the market). As to why they would actually allow the trade to occur - Zak (and other answers) point out that the shares being lent are compensated for by an initial fee on the transaction + the chance for interest during the period that the shares are owed for." }, { "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": "257832", "title": "", "text": "\"I'd advise you to use a broker. Even a discount broker like Charles Schwab would do. First, they would do the \"\"trades\"\" purchase/sale, on your behalf, using parameters you specify (and also tell you where the \"\"market\"\" is at any given time). Second, they may sell you bills of a desirable term (e.g. six weeks) of out their own inventory. Third, they will lend you money (50% or more) against your holdings, so you'll have some money when you need it, and the balance when the bills mature.\"" }, { "docid": "445943", "title": "", "text": "\"Supply and Demand, pure and simple! There are two basic forms of this - a change in the quantity demanded/supplied at any given price, and a true change in the amount of demand/supply itself. Please note that this can be distinct from the underlying change in the value of the company and/or its expected future cash flows, which are a function of both financial performance and future expectations. If more people want the stock that are willing to sell it at a given price at a given point in time, sellers will begin to offer the stocks at higher prices until the market is no longer willing to bear the new price, and vice versa. This will reduce the quantity of stocks demanded by buyers until the quantity demanded and the quantity supplied once again reach an equilibrium, at which point a transaction occurs. Because people are motivated to buy and sell for different reasons at different times, and because people have different opinions on a constant flow of new information, prices change frequently. This is one of the reasons why executives of a recent IPO don't typically sell all of their stock at once. In addition to legal restrictions and the message this would send to the market, if they flooded the market with additional quantities of stock supplied, all else being equal, since there is no corresponding increase in the quantity demanded, the price would drop significantly. Sometimes, the demand itself for a company's stock shifts. Unlike a simple change in price driven by quantity supplied versus quantity demanded, this is a more fundamental shift. For example, let's suppose that the current demand for rare earth metals is driven by their commercial applications in consumer electronics. Now if new devices are developed that no longer require these metals, the demand for them will fall, regardless of the actions of individual buyers and sellers in the market. Another example is when the \"\"rules of the game\"\" for an industry change dramatically. Markets are behavioral. In this sense prices are most directly driven by human behavior, which hopefully is based on well-informed opinions and facts. This is why sometimes the price keeps going up when financial performance decreases, and why sometimes it does not rise even while performance is improving. This is also why some companies' stock continues to rise even when they lose huge sums of money year after year. The key to understanding these scenarios is the opinions and expectations that buyers and sellers have of that information, which is expressed in their market behavior.\"" }, { "docid": "525527", "title": "", "text": "\"There is no unique identifier that exists to identify specific shares of a stock. Just like money in the bank, there is no real reason to identify which exact dollar bills belong to me or you, so long as there is a record that I own X bills and I can access them when I want. (Of course, unlike banks, there is still a 1:1 relationship between the amount I should own and the amount they actually hold). If I may reach a bit, the question that I assume you are asking is how are shared actually tracked, transferred, and recorded so that I know for certain that I traded you 20 Microsoft shares yesterday and they are now officially yours, given that it's all digital. While you can technically try and request a physical share certificate, it's very cumbersome to handle and transfer in that form. Ownership of shares themselves are tracked for brokerage firms (in the case of retail trading, which I assume is the context of this question as we're discussion personal finance). Your broker has a record of how many shares of X, Y, and Z you own, when you bought each share and for how much, and while you are the beneficial owner of record (you get dividends, voting rights, etc.) your brokerage is the one who is \"\"holding\"\" the shares. When you buy or sell a stock and you are matched with a counterparty (the process of which is beyond the scope of this question) then a process of settlement comes into play. In the US, settlement takes 3 working days to process, and technically ownership does not transfer until the 3rd day after the trade is made, though things like margin accounts will allow you to effectively act as if you own the shares immediately after a buy/sell order is filled. Settlement in the US is done by a sole source, the Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (DTCC). This is where retail and institutional trade all go to be sorted, checked and confirmed, and ultimately returned to the safekeeping of their new owners' representatives (your brokerage). Interestingly, the DTCC is also the central custodian for shares both physical and virtual, and that is where the shares of stock ultimately reside.\"" }, { "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": "451794", "title": "", "text": "My former accountant, used to provide this service as part of him doing my taxes. During the off season, he would provide a planning session and he would review strategies that I might look into. Since he did not make any money off of providing investments, he was about as unbiased as one could be. However, something like that might not be enough for you guys. You could go with someone online, Scottrade is going into the business of providing advice, as well as Charles Schwab or Fidelity, but you might need someone more personal. In that case, I would use my network. Talk to people, ask who they use, like, and respect. I would say it is very easy to find mediocre investment advisers, the good ones are hard. I would look for one that teaches. It is very easy to tell someone what to do, much harder to teach them what is the right thing. One thing that is easy about your situation: Planning to buy a home. Put money for a down payment in a high interest savings account. What I mean by high interest, is they still pay almost nothing. You can't really make a mistake. If you find one with .5% instead of .85%, what is the real difference after 5 years? About $180?" }, { "docid": "476721", "title": "", "text": "There's some risk, but it's quite small: The only catastrophic case I can think of is if the brokerage firm defrauded you about purchasing the assets in the first place; e.g., when you ostensibly put money into a mutual fund, they just pocketed it and displayed a fictitious purchase on their web site. In that case, you'd have no real asset to legally recover. I think the more realistic risks you should be concerned with are: The only major brokerage firm that I'm aware of that accepts liability for theft is Charles Schwab: http://www.schwab.com/public/schwab/nn/legal_compliance/schwabsafe/security_guarantee.html If you're going to diversify for security reasons, be sure to use different passwords, email addresses, and secret question answers on the two accounts." }, { "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": "73224", "title": "", "text": "\"Stock support and resistance levels mean that historically, there was \"\"heavy\"\" buying/selling at those levels. This suggests, but does not guarantee, that \"\"someone\"\" will buy at \"\"support\"\" levels, and \"\"someone\"\" will sell at \"\"resistance levels. Any \"\"history\"\" is meaningful, but most analysts will say that after six months to a year, the impact of events declines the further back in time you go. They can be meaningful for periods as short as days.\"" }, { "docid": "346398", "title": "", "text": "Do not do investing with a bank. Do investing with a low cost investment company like Vanguard, Fidelity, or Charles Schwab. The lower the expenses of the fund the better. The additional money your account earns because of lower overhead expenses is so dramatic over the course of your investing it is mind boggling to me. The lower the expenses, the more of your money you keep, which feeds the power of compound interest. http://www.fool.com/investing/mutual-funds/2008/09/03/this-fund-charges-what.aspx" }, { "docid": "395357", "title": "", "text": "The way I would use it is, every trade done by a broker has a client side and a street side. The client side is for their brokerage account, and the street side is whoever they traded with Say, John Doe calls me at Charles Schwab and wants to buy 100 IBM. I look at the market and decide that the best execution is on Arca. I trade on Arca for the client. Then, I book a client side trade into his account, and a street side trade against Arca. If I myself was a dealer in IBM and executed against my inventory, the street side would basically be internal, booking a trade against my account." }, { "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": "393467", "title": "", "text": "\"If you want to deposit checks or conduct business at a window, you should look at a local savings bank or credit union. Generally, you can find one that will offer \"\"free\"\" checking in exchange for direct deposit or a minimum balance. Some are totally free, but those banks pay zippo for interest. If you don't care about location, I would look at Charles Schwab Bank. I've been using them for a couple of years and have been really satisfied with them. They provide free checking, ATM fee reimbursement, free checks and pre-paid deposit envelopes. You also can easily move money between Schwab brokerage or savings accounts. Other brokers offer similar services as well.\"" }, { "docid": "152709", "title": "", "text": "\"Members of the Federal Reserve System keep track of what money a bank has (if it's not in the vault), who owns what shares of stock, who owns what bond, etc. The part of the Federal Reserve System that tracks stock ownership is the Depository Trust Company (DTC). They have a group of subsidiaries that settle various types of security transactions. DTC is a member of the U.S. Federal Reserve System, a limited-purpose trust company under New York State banking law and a registered clearing agency with the Securities and Exchange Commission. There's lots of information on their website describing this process. DTCC's subsidiary, The Depository Trust Company (DTC), established in 1973, was created to reduce costs and provide clearing and settlement efficiencies by immobilizing securities and making \"\"book-entry\"\" changes to ownership of the securities. DTC provides securities movements for NSCC's net settlements1, and settlement for institutional trades (which typically involve money and securities transfers between custodian banks and broker/dealers), as well as money market instruments. Black pools are trades done where the price is not shared with the market. But the DTC is the one who keeps track of who owns which shares. They have records of all net transactions2. The DTC is the counterparty for transactions. When stock moves from one entity to another the DTC is involved. As the central counterparty for the nation's major exchanges and markets, DTCC clears and settles virtually all broker-to-broker equity 1. This is the link that shows that settlements are reported on a \"\"net basis\"\". 2. If broker A sells 1000 shares of something to broker B at 8 and then five minutes later broker B sells the 1000 shares back to A, you cannot be sure that that total volume will be recorded. No net trading took place and there would be fees to pay for no reason if they reported both trades. Note: In dark pool trading quite often the two parties don't know each other. For shares (book-keeping records) to be exchanged it has to be done through a Clearing House.\"" }, { "docid": "121465", "title": "", "text": "\"Securities clearing and settlement is a complex topic - you can start by browsing relevant Wikipedia articles, and (given sufficient quantities of masochism and strong coffee) progress to entire technical books. You're correct - modern trade settlement systems are electronic and heavily streamlined. However, you're never going to see people hand over assets until they're sure that payment has cleared - given current payment systems, that means the fastest settlement time is going to be the next business day (so-called T+1 settlement), which is what's seen for heavily standardized instruments like standard options and government debt securities. Stocks present bigger obstacles. First, the seller has to locate the asset being sold & make sure they have clear title to it... which is tougher than it might seem, given the layers of abstraction/virtualization involved in the chain of ownership & custody, complicated in particular by \"\"rehypothecation\"\" involved in stock borrowing/lending for short sales... especially since stock borrow/lending record-keeping tends to be somewhat slipshod (cf. periodic uproar about \"\"naked shorting\"\" and \"\"failure to deliver\"\"). Second, the seller has to determine what exactly it is that they have sold... which, again, can be tougher than it might seem. You see, stocks are subject to all kinds of corporate actions (e.g. cash distributions, spin-offs, splits, liquidations, delistings...) A particular topic of keen interest is who exactly is entitled to large cash distributions - the buyer or the seller? Depending on the cutoff date (the \"\"ex-dividend date\"\"), the seller may need to deliver to the buyer just the shares of stock, or the shares plus a big chunk of cash - a significant difference in settlement. Determining the precise ex-dividend date (and so what exactly are the assets to be settled) can sometimes be very difficult... it's usually T-2, except in the case of large distributions, which are usually T+1, unless the regulatory authority has neglected to declare an ex-dividend date, in which case it defaults to standard DTC payment policy (i.e. T-2)... I've been involved in a few situations where the brokers involved were clueless, and full settlement of \"\"due bills\"\" for cash distributions to the buyer took several months of hard arguing. So yeah, the brokers want a little time to get their records in order and settle the trade correctly.\"" }, { "docid": "121622", "title": "", "text": "\"BigCo is selling new shares and receives the money from Venturo. If Venturo is offering $250k for 25% of the company, then the valuation that they are agreeing on is a value of $1m for the company after the new investment is made. If Jack is the sole owner of one million shares before the new investment, then BigCo sells 333,333 shares to Venturo for $250k. The new total number of shares of BigCo is 1,333,333; Venturo holds 25%, and Jack holds 75%. The amount that Jack originally invested in the company is irrelevant. At the moment of the sale, the Venturo and Jack agree that Jack's stake is worth $750k. The value of Jack's stake may have gone up, but he owes no capital gains tax, because he hasn't realized any of his gains yet. Jack hasn't sold any of his stake. You might think that he has, because he used to hold 100% and now he holds 75%. However, the difference is that the company is worth more than was before the sale. So the value of his stake was unchanged immediately before and after the sale. Jack agrees to this because the company needs this additional capital in order to meet its potential. (See \"\"Why is stock dilution legal?\"\") For further explanation and another example of this, see the question \"\"If a startup receives investment money, does the startup founder/owner actually gain anything?\"\" Your other scenario, where Venturo purchases existing shares directly from Jack, is not practical in this situation. If Jack sells his existing shares, you are correct that the company does not gain any additional capital. An investor would not want to invest in the company this way, because the company is struggling and needs new capital.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "406974", "title": "", "text": "\"TLDR: Why can't banks give me my money? We don't have your money. Who has my money? About half a dozen different people all over the world. And we need to coordinate with them and their banks to get you your money. I love how everyone seems to think that the securities industry has super powers. Believe me, even with T+3, you won't believe how many trades fail to settle properly. Yes, your trade is pretty simple. But Cash Equity trades in general can be very complicated (for the layman). Your sell order will have been pushed onto an algorithmic platform, aggregated with other sell order, and crossed with internal buy orders. The surplus would then be split out by the algo to try and get the best price based on \"\"orders\"\" on the market. Finally the \"\"fills\"\" are used in settlement, which could potentially have been filled in multiple trades against multiple counterparties. In order to guarantee that the money can be in your account, we need 3 days. Also remember, we aren't JUST looking at your transaction. Each bank is looking to square off all the different trades between all their counter parties over a single day. Thousands of transactions/fills may have to be processed just for a single name. Finally because, there a many many transactions that do not settle automatically, our settlements team needs to co-ordinate with the other bank to make sure that you get your money. Bear in mind, banks being banks, we are working with systems that are older than I am. *And all of the above is the \"\"simplest\"\" case, I haven't even factored in Dark Pools/Block trades, auctions, pre/post-market trading sessions, Foreign Exchange, Derivatives, KYC/AML.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "581866", "title": "", "text": "To try to answer the three explicit questions: Every share of stock is treated proportionately: each share is assigned the same dollar amount of investment (1/176th part of the contribution in the example), and has the same discount amount (15% of $20 or $25, depending on when you sell, usually). So if you immediately sell 120 shares at $25, you have taxable income on the gain for those shares (120*($25-$17)). Either selling immediately or holding for the long term period (12-18 mo) can be advantageous, just in different ways. Selling immediately avoids a risk of a decline in the price of the stock, and allows you to invest elsewhere and earn income on the proceeds for the next 12-18 months that you would not otherwise have had. The downside is that all of your gain ($25-$17 per share) is taxed as ordinary income. Holding for the full period is advantageous in that only the discount (15% of $20 or $25) will be taxed as ordinary income and the rest of the gain (sell price minus $20 or $25) will be taxed at long-term capital gain tax rates, which generally are lower than ordinary rates (all taxes are due in the year you do sell). The catch is you will sell at different price, higher or lower, and thus have a risk of loss (or gain). You will never be (Federally) double taxed in any scenario. The $3000 you put in will not be taxed after all is sold, as it is a return of your capital investment. All money you receive in excess of the $3000 will be taxed, in all scenarios, just potentially at different rates, ordinary or capital gain. (All this ignores AMT considerations, which you likely are not subject to.)" }, { "docid": "314499", "title": "", "text": "It sounds like your looking for something like an offshore bank (e.g. an anonymous Swiss bank account). These don't really exist anymore. I think you should just open a small bank account in your home country (preferably one the reimburses your ATM fees, like Charles Schwab in the US). If it's a small amount of money, the authorities probably won't care and they won't be able to give you large penalties anyways." }, { "docid": "257832", "title": "", "text": "\"I'd advise you to use a broker. Even a discount broker like Charles Schwab would do. First, they would do the \"\"trades\"\" purchase/sale, on your behalf, using parameters you specify (and also tell you where the \"\"market\"\" is at any given time). Second, they may sell you bills of a desirable term (e.g. six weeks) of out their own inventory. Third, they will lend you money (50% or more) against your holdings, so you'll have some money when you need it, and the balance when the bills mature.\"" }, { "docid": "393467", "title": "", "text": "\"If you want to deposit checks or conduct business at a window, you should look at a local savings bank or credit union. Generally, you can find one that will offer \"\"free\"\" checking in exchange for direct deposit or a minimum balance. Some are totally free, but those banks pay zippo for interest. If you don't care about location, I would look at Charles Schwab Bank. I've been using them for a couple of years and have been really satisfied with them. They provide free checking, ATM fee reimbursement, free checks and pre-paid deposit envelopes. You also can easily move money between Schwab brokerage or savings accounts. Other brokers offer similar services as well.\"" }, { "docid": "179520", "title": "", "text": "Your question is unanswerable as you haven't provided enough information. I.e. If those shares cost $1000 and you have $50000 ( or any number above $1000) of cash available in the account then you can't possibly free ride. I think your understanding of the free ride rule is incorrect. Basically what this rule is stating is that you have to have the cash when the trade is placed in order to settle the trade. Otherwise you are taking on margin (which you can't do in a cash account). So at order entry you have to have the cash to cover the purchase so it's able to be settled. If you do, no problem and you can sell that stock before trade settlement. There is no law that says you have to hold it past trade settlement. However, you cannot spend the same dollar more than once before it settles. This site does a good job explaining this more throughly with examples: http://www.invest-faq.com/articles/trade-day-free-ride.html" }, { "docid": "103842", "title": "", "text": "Does the 5 year rule apply on the After-tax 401k -> Roth 401k -> Roth IRA conversion of the 20000 (including 10000 earnings that was originally pre-tax)? No. The after-tax amounts are not subject to the 5 years rule. The earnings are. How does this affect Roth IRA withdrawal ordering rules with respect to the taxable portion of a single conversion being withdrawn before the non-taxable portion? Taxable portion first until exhausted. To better understand how it works, you need to understand the rationale behind the 5-year rule. Consider you have $100K in your IRA (traditional) and you want to take it out. Just withdrawing it would trigger a 10K statutory penalty, on top of the taxes due. But, you can use the backdoor Roth IRA, right? So convert the 100K, and then it becomes after-tax contribution to Roth IRA, and can be withdrawn with no penalty. One form filled ad 10K saved. To block this loophole, here comes the 5 years rule: you cannot withdraw after-tax amounts for at least 5 years without penalty, if the source was taxable conversion. Thus, in order to avoid the 10K penalty in the above situation, you have a 5-year cooling period, which makes the loophole useless for most cases. However amounts that are after tax can be withdrawn without penalty already, even from the traditional IRA, so there's no need in the 5 years cooling period. The withdrawal attribution is in this order: Roth IRA rollovers are sourced to the origin. E.g.: if you converted $100 to the Roth IRA at firm X and then a year later rolled it over to firm Y - it doesn't affect anything and the clock is ticking from the original date of the conversion at firm X. 5-year period applies to each conversion/rollover from a qualified retirement plan (see here). Distributions are applied to the conversions in FIFO order, so in one distribution, depending on the amounts, you may hit several different incoming conversions. The 5 years should be check on each of them, and the penalty applied on the amounts attributable to those that don't have enough time. 5-year period for contributions applies starting from the beginning of the first year of the first contribution that established your Roth IRA plan. The penalty applies to the amounts that were included in your gross income when conversion occurred, i.e.: doesn't apply on the amounts converted from after-tax sources. Note the difference from the traditional IRA - distributions from pre-tax sources are prorated between the non-deductible (basis) amounts and the deductible/earnings amounts (taxable). That is why the taxable amounts are first in the ordering of the distributions." }, { "docid": "239334", "title": "", "text": "\"I have an account with ETrade. Earlier this week I got an offer to participate in the IPO proper (at the IPO price). If Charles Schwab doesn't give you the opportunity, that's a shortcoming of them as a brokerage firm; there are definitely ways for retail investors to invest in it, wise investment or no. (Okay, technically it wasn't an offer to participate, it was a notice that participation was possibly available, various securities-law disclaimers etc withstanding. \"\"This Web site is neither an offer to sell nor a solicitation to buy these securities. The offer is by prospectus only. This Web site contains a preliminary prospectus for each offering.\"\" etc etc).\"" }, { "docid": "213310", "title": "", "text": "\"TLDR: Yes you can. That is quite a steep price to pay for a trade. I've used TradeKing previously, which would charge you $5 for that same trade. Some other brokers are more or less expensive, and it is normally representative of the service one receives. One option would be Scottrade. While they are much more expensive than TradeKing, they offer a much higher level of service. Even at $17 a trade, you'll save a lot of money over the Edward Jones trade. A big question here is who does your investing now? Most people are pretty horrible at managing their own investments. Some professional advice is probably in order. For most they discover this when their investments are small, mitigating any mistakes made. You don't have that luxury. I would highly recommend making sure you have people that can help you make good decisions. The more I think about it the more I like the move to Scottrade (no affiliation) or one like that (Charles Schwab is another option). With Scottrade you can go into a local branch and talk things over. I think they offer some professional management as well. Schwab will offer the latter but not the former. However you can call them up and talk on the phone. Another option is to go with Fidelity and have them manage at least part of your money. Of course you can always just do a professional, independent money manager. Another option is to renegotiate with Edward Jones. Something like: \"\"Sorry but this is ridiculous, you need to do much better or I am moving all my money.\"\" Its much cheaper to charge you $100 for that same trade than lose the whole account.\"" }, { "docid": "476721", "title": "", "text": "There's some risk, but it's quite small: The only catastrophic case I can think of is if the brokerage firm defrauded you about purchasing the assets in the first place; e.g., when you ostensibly put money into a mutual fund, they just pocketed it and displayed a fictitious purchase on their web site. In that case, you'd have no real asset to legally recover. I think the more realistic risks you should be concerned with are: The only major brokerage firm that I'm aware of that accepts liability for theft is Charles Schwab: http://www.schwab.com/public/schwab/nn/legal_compliance/schwabsafe/security_guarantee.html If you're going to diversify for security reasons, be sure to use different passwords, email addresses, and secret question answers on the two accounts." }, { "docid": "553896", "title": "", "text": "Some brokers have a number of shares they can offer their customers, but the small guy will get 100, not as many as they'd like. In the Tech bubble of the late 90's I was able to buy in to many IPOs, but the written deal from the broker is that you could not sell for 30 days or you'd be restricted from IPO purchases for the next 90. No matter what the stock opened at, there were a fair number of stocks thay were below IPO issue price after 30 days had passed. I haven't started looking at IPOs since the tech flameout, but had I gotten in to LinkedIn it would have been at that $45 price. Let's see if it stays at these levels after 30 days. Edit - This is the exact cut/paste from my broker's site : Selling IPO Shares: While XXX customers are always free to sell shares purchased in a public offering at any time, short holding periods of less than 31 calendar days will be a factor in determining whether XXX allocates you shares in future public offerings. Accordingly, if you sell IPO shares purchased in a public offering within 30 calendar days of such purchase, you will be restricted from participating in initial and secondary public offerings through XXX for a period of 3 months. (I deleted the broker name) I honestly don't know if I'd have gotten any LI shares. Next interesting one is Pandora." }, { "docid": "395357", "title": "", "text": "The way I would use it is, every trade done by a broker has a client side and a street side. The client side is for their brokerage account, and the street side is whoever they traded with Say, John Doe calls me at Charles Schwab and wants to buy 100 IBM. I look at the market and decide that the best execution is on Arca. I trade on Arca for the client. Then, I book a client side trade into his account, and a street side trade against Arca. If I myself was a dealer in IBM and executed against my inventory, the street side would basically be internal, booking a trade against my account." }, { "docid": "525527", "title": "", "text": "\"There is no unique identifier that exists to identify specific shares of a stock. Just like money in the bank, there is no real reason to identify which exact dollar bills belong to me or you, so long as there is a record that I own X bills and I can access them when I want. (Of course, unlike banks, there is still a 1:1 relationship between the amount I should own and the amount they actually hold). If I may reach a bit, the question that I assume you are asking is how are shared actually tracked, transferred, and recorded so that I know for certain that I traded you 20 Microsoft shares yesterday and they are now officially yours, given that it's all digital. While you can technically try and request a physical share certificate, it's very cumbersome to handle and transfer in that form. Ownership of shares themselves are tracked for brokerage firms (in the case of retail trading, which I assume is the context of this question as we're discussion personal finance). Your broker has a record of how many shares of X, Y, and Z you own, when you bought each share and for how much, and while you are the beneficial owner of record (you get dividends, voting rights, etc.) your brokerage is the one who is \"\"holding\"\" the shares. When you buy or sell a stock and you are matched with a counterparty (the process of which is beyond the scope of this question) then a process of settlement comes into play. In the US, settlement takes 3 working days to process, and technically ownership does not transfer until the 3rd day after the trade is made, though things like margin accounts will allow you to effectively act as if you own the shares immediately after a buy/sell order is filled. Settlement in the US is done by a sole source, the Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (DTCC). This is where retail and institutional trade all go to be sorted, checked and confirmed, and ultimately returned to the safekeeping of their new owners' representatives (your brokerage). Interestingly, the DTCC is also the central custodian for shares both physical and virtual, and that is where the shares of stock ultimately reside.\"" }, { "docid": "73224", "title": "", "text": "\"Stock support and resistance levels mean that historically, there was \"\"heavy\"\" buying/selling at those levels. This suggests, but does not guarantee, that \"\"someone\"\" will buy at \"\"support\"\" levels, and \"\"someone\"\" will sell at \"\"resistance levels. Any \"\"history\"\" is meaningful, but most analysts will say that after six months to a year, the impact of events declines the further back in time you go. They can be meaningful for periods as short as days.\"" }, { "docid": "14461", "title": "", "text": "For a company listed on NASDAQ, the numbers are published on NASDAQ's site. The most recent settlement date was 4/30/2013, and you can see that it lists 27.5 million shares as held short. NASDAQ gets these numbers from FINRA member firms, which are required to submit them to the exchange twice a month: Each FINRA member firm is required to report its “total” short interest positions in all customer and proprietary accounts in NASDAQ-listed securities twice a month. These reports are used to calculate short interest in NASDAQ stocks. FINRA member firms are required to report their short positions as of settlement on (1) the 15th of each month, or the preceding business day if the 15th is not a business day, and (2) as of settlement on the last business day of the month.* The reports must be filed by the second business day after the reporting settlement date. FINRA compiles the short interest data and provides it for publication on the 8th business day after the reporting settlement date." }, { "docid": "535427", "title": "", "text": "The answers you've received already are very good. I truly sympathize with your situation. In general, it makes sense to try to build off of existing relationships. Here are a few ideas: I don't know if you work for a small or large company, or local/state government. But if there is any kind of retirement planning through your workplace, make sure to investigate that. Those people are usually already paid something for their services by your employer, so they should have less of an interest in making money off you directly. One more thought: A no-fee brokerage company e.g. Charles Schwab. They offer a free one hour phone call with an investment adviser if you invest at least $25K. I personally had very good experiences with them. This answer may be too anecdotal and not specifically address the annuity dilemma you mentioned. That annunity dilemma is why you need to find someone you can trust, who is competent (see the credentials for financial advisers mentioned in the other answers), and will work the numbers out with you." }, { "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": "363043", "title": "", "text": "\"A covered call risks the disparity between the purchase price and the potential forced or \"\"called\"\" sale price less the premium received. So buy a stock for $10.00 believing it will drop you or not rise above $14.00 for a given period of days. You sell a call for a $1.00 agreeing to sell your stock for $14.00 and your wrong...the stock rises and at 14.00 or above during the option period the person who paid you the $1.00 premium gets the stock for a net effective price of $15.00. You have a gain of 5$. Your hypothecated loss is unlimited in that the stock could go to $1mil a share. That loss is an opportunity loss you still had a modest profit in actual $. The naked call is a different beast. you get the 1.00 in commission to sell a stock you don't own but must pay for that right. so lets say you net .75 in commission per share after your sell the option. as long as the stock trades below $14.00 during the period of the option you sold your golden. It rises above the strike price you must now buy that stock at market to fill the order when the counter party choses to exercise the option which results in a REAL loss of 100% of the stocks market price less the .75 a share you made. in the scenarios a 1000 shares that for up $30.00 a share over the strike price make you $5,000 in a covered call and lose you $29,250 in a naked call.Naked calls are speculative. Covered calls are strategic.\"" }, { "docid": "287239", "title": "", "text": "\"Penny stocks are only appealing to the brokers who sell the penny stocks and the companies selling \"\"penny stock signals!\"\". Generally penny stocks provide abysmal returns to the average investor (you or me). In \"\"The Missing Risk Premium\"\", Falkenstein does a quick overview on average returns to penny stock investors citing the following paper \"\"Do Investors Overpay for Stocks with Lottery-Like Payoffs? An Examination of the Returns on OTC Stocks\"\". Over the 2000 to 2009 time period, average investors lost nearly half their investment. A comparable investment in the S&P over this period would have been flat see here. There is a good table in the book/paper showing that the average annual return for stocks priced at either a penny or ten cents range from -10 percent (for medium volume) to -30% to -40% for low or high volume. A different paper, \"\"Too Good to Ignore? A Primer on Listed Penny Stocks\"\" that cites the one above finds that listed, as opposed to OTC \"\"Pink Sheet\"\" penny stocks\"\", have better returns, but provide no premium for the additional risk and low liquidity. The best advice here is that there is no \"\"quick win\"\" in penny stocks. These act more like lottery tickets and are not appropriate for the average investor. Stear clear!\"" }, { "docid": "451794", "title": "", "text": "My former accountant, used to provide this service as part of him doing my taxes. During the off season, he would provide a planning session and he would review strategies that I might look into. Since he did not make any money off of providing investments, he was about as unbiased as one could be. However, something like that might not be enough for you guys. You could go with someone online, Scottrade is going into the business of providing advice, as well as Charles Schwab or Fidelity, but you might need someone more personal. In that case, I would use my network. Talk to people, ask who they use, like, and respect. I would say it is very easy to find mediocre investment advisers, the good ones are hard. I would look for one that teaches. It is very easy to tell someone what to do, much harder to teach them what is the right thing. One thing that is easy about your situation: Planning to buy a home. Put money for a down payment in a high interest savings account. What I mean by high interest, is they still pay almost nothing. You can't really make a mistake. If you find one with .5% instead of .85%, what is the real difference after 5 years? About $180?" } ]

[ { "docid": "499849", "title": "", "text": "\"They're taking advantage of float. Like so many things in the financial world today, this practice is a (strictly legal) fraud. When you make the transaction, the money is available immediately, for reasons that should be intuitively obvious to anyone who's ever used PayPal. It doesn't take 3 minutes for the broker to get that money, let alone 3 days. But if they can hold on to that money instead of turning it over to you, they can make money from it for themselves, putting money that rightfully belongs to you to work for them instead, earning interest on short-term loans, money market accounts, etc. The SEC mandates that this money must be turned over to you within 3 days so it should not surprise anyone that that's exactly how long the \"\"we have to wait for it to clear\"\" scam runs for. Even if it doesn't seem like very much money per transaction, for a large brokerage with hundreds of thousands of clients, all the little bits add up very quickly. This is why they feel no need to compete by offering better service: offering poor service is making them a lot of money that they would lose by offering better service.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "292159", "title": "", "text": "\"Scenario 1 - When you sell the shares in a margin account, you will see your buying power go up, but your \"\"amount available to withdraw\"\" stays the same until settlement. Yes, you can reallocate the same day, no need to wait until settlement. There is no margin interest for this scenario. Scenario 2 - If that stock is marginable to 50%, and all you have is $10,000 in that stock, you can buy another $10,000. Once done, you are at 50% margin, exactly.\"" }, { "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": "206270", "title": "", "text": "Since I am having the same question so I made couple of phone calls based on some answers above. The 1st one was TD Amertrade: They don't directly accept money from China. The 2nd one was Charles Schwab: NO FEES to accept the money from China whatsoever! Open an account is free with ACH function and more. Hope it helps for anyone who needed." }, { "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": "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": "493012", "title": "", "text": "\"Well, futures don't have a \"\"strike\"\" like an option - the price represents how much you're obligated to buy/sell the index for at a specified date in the future. You are correct that there's no cost to enter a contract (though there may be broker fees and margin payments). Any difference between the contract price and the price of the index at settlement is what is exchanged at settlement. It's analogous to the bid/ask on a stock - the bid price represents the price at which someone is willing to \"\"buy\"\" a futures contract (meaning enter into a long position) and the ask is how much someone is willing to \"\"sell\"\" a contract. So if you want to take a long position on S&P500 mini futures you'd have to enter in at the \"\"ask\"\" price. If the index is above your contract price on the future expiry date you'll make a profit; if it is below the contract price you'll take a loss.\"" }, { "docid": "226984", "title": "", "text": "\"The settlement date for any trade is the date on which the seller gets the buyer's money and the buyer gets the seller's product. In US equities markets the settlement date is (almost universally) three trading days after the trade date. This settlement period gives the exchanges, the clearing houses, and the brokers time to figure out how many shares and how many dollars need to actually be moved around in order to give everyone what they're owed (and then to actually do all that moving around). So, \"\"settling\"\" a short trade is the same thing as settling any other trade. It has nothing to do with \"\"closing\"\" (or covering) the seller's short position. Q: Is this referring to when a short is initiated, or closed? A: Initiated. If you initiate a short position by selling borrowed shares on day 1, then settlement occurs on day 4. (Regardless of whether your short position is still open or has been closed.) Q: All open shorts which are still open by the settlement date have to be reported by the due date. A: Not exactly. The requirement is that all short positions evaluated based on their settlement dates (rather than their trade dates) still open on the deadline have to be reported by the due date. You sell short 100 AAPL on day 1. You then cover that short by buying 100 AAPL on day 2. As far as the clearing houses and brokers are concerned, however, you don't even get into the short position until your sell settles at the end of day 4, and you finally get out of your short position (in their eyes) when your buy settles at the end of day 5. So imagine the following scenarios: The NASDAQ deadline happens to be the end of day 2. Since your (FINRA member) broker has been told to report based on settlement date, it would report no open position for you in AAPL even though you executed a trade to sell on day 1. The NASDAQ deadline happens to be the end of day 3. Your sell still has not settled, so there's still no open position to report for you. The NASDAQ deadline happens to be the end of day 4. Your sell has settled but your buy has not, so the broker reports a 100 share open short position for you. The NASDAQ deadline happens to be the end of day 5. Your sell and buy have both settled, so the broker once again has no open position to report for you. So, the point is that when dealing with settlement dates you just pretend the world is 3 days behind where it actually is.\"" }, { "docid": "13885", "title": "", "text": "You could buy shares of an Exchange-Traded Fund (ETF) based on the price of gold, like GLD, IAU, or SGOL. You can invest in this fund through almost any brokerage firm, e.g. Fidelity, Etrade, Scotttrade, TD Ameritrade, Charles Schwab, ShareBuilder, etc. Keep in mind that you'll still have to pay a commission and fees when purchasing an ETF, but it will almost certainly be less than paying the markup or storage fees of buying the physical commodity directly. An ETF trades exactly like a stock, on an exchange, with a ticker symbol as noted above. The commission will apply the same as any stock trade, and the price will reflect some fraction of an ounce of gold, for the GLD, it started as .1oz, but fees have been applied over the years, so it's a bit less. You could also invest in PHYS, which is a closed-end mutual fund that allows investors to trade their shares for 400-ounce gold bars. However, because the fund is closed-end, it may trade at a significant premium or discount compared to the actual price of gold for supply and demand reasons. Also, keep in mind that investing in gold will never be the same as depositing your money in the bank. In the United States, money stored in a bank is FDIC-insured up to $250,000, and there are several banks or financial institutions that deposit money in multiple banks to double or triple the effective insurance limit (Fidelity has an account like this, for example). If you invest in gold and the price plunges, you're left with the fair market value of that gold, not your original deposit. Yes, you're hoping the price of your gold investment will increase to at least match inflation, but you're hoping, i.e. speculating, which isn't the same as depositing your money in an insured bank account. If you want to speculate and invest in something with the hope of outpacing inflation, you're likely better off investing in a low-cost index fund of inflation-protected securities (or the S&P500, over the long term) rather than gold. Just to be clear, I'm using the laymen's definition of a speculator, which is someone who engages in risky financial transactions in an attempt to profit from short or medium term fluctuations This is similar to the definition used in some markets, e.g. futures, but in many cases, economists and places like the CFTC define speculators as anyone who doesn't have a position in the underlying security. For example, a farmer selling corn futures is a hedger, while the trading firm purchasing the contracts is a speculator. The trading firm doesn't necessarily have to be actively trading the contract in the short-run; they merely have no position in the underlying commodity." }, { "docid": "187729", "title": "", "text": "The commenters who referred you to the prisoner's dilemma are exactly correct, but I wanted to give a more detailed explanation because I find game theory quite interesting. The prisoner's dilemma is a classic scenario in game theory where even though it's in the best interests of two or more players to cooperate, they fail to do so. Wikipedia has a simple example using prisoners, but I'll use a simple example using Fidel and Charles, who are fund managers at Fidelity and Charles Schwab, respectively. To make the table shorter, I abbreviated a bit: INC = increase fees, KEEP=keep fees the same, DEC=decrease fees. Here is the dilemma itself, in the table that shows the resulting market shares if each fund manager follows the course of action in question. While this example isn't mathematically rigorous because I completely fabricated the numbers, it makes a good example. The most profitable course of action would be both fund managers agreeing to increase their fees, which would keep their market shares the same but increase their profits as they earn more fees. However, this won't happen for several reasons. Because economies of scale exist in the market for investment funds, it's reasonable to assume in a simple example that as funds grow larger, their costs decrease, so even though a fund manager decreases his fees (betraying the other players), this decrease won't be enough to reduce their profits. In fact, the increased market share resulting from such a decrease may well dominate the decreased fees and lead to higher profits. The prisoner's dilemma is highly applicable to markets such as these because they exist as oligopolies, i.e. markets where a relatively small number of established sellers possess considerable market power. If you actually wanted to model the market for donor-advised funds using game theory, you need to take a few more things into account. Obviously there are more than two firms. It's probably a valid assumption that the market is an oligopoly with significant economies of scale, but I haven't researched this extensively. There is more than one time period, so some form of the iterated prisoner's dilemma is needed. The market for donor-advised funds is also complicated by the fact that these are philanthropic funds. This may introduce tax implications or the problem of goodwill and institutional opinion of these funds. Although both funds increasing their fees may increase their profits in theory, institutional investors may look on this as a pure profit-seeking and take their funds elsewhere. For example, they may choose to invest in smaller funds with higher fees but better reputations. While reputation is important for any company, it might make more of a difference when the fund/investment vehicle is philanthropic in nature. I am by no means an expert on game theory, so I'm sure there are other nuances to the situation that I'm unaware of." }, { "docid": "6471", "title": "", "text": "Do not take the cash! You might be able to leave the money with the large company. Ask the HR people at the company. If you are satisfied with their work, no sense leaving if you don't have to. I have coworkers that have 401K all over from all the buyouts the company went through. If you don't want to leave it behind, do a rollover into your own account with a low cost carrier. (Vanguard, Fidelity and Charles Schwab are popular) Whoever you choose for your own account can help you rollover the funds without penalty. (Schwab helped me over the phone, it was pretty simple) More about rolling over a Roth 401K" }, { "docid": "348445", "title": "", "text": "In short (pun intended), the shareholder lending the shares does not believe that the shares will fall, even though the potential investor does. The shareholder believes that the shares will rise. Because the two individuals believe that a different outcome will occur, they are able to make a trade. By using the available data in the market, they have arrived at a particular conclusion of the fair price for the trade, but each individual wants to be on the other side of it. Consider a simpler form of your question: Why would a shareholder agree to sell his/her shares? Why don't they just wait to sell, when the price is higher? After all, that is why the buyer wants to purchase the shares. On review, I realize I've only stated here why the original shareholder wouldn't simply sell and rebuy the share themselves (because they have a different view of the market). As to why they would actually allow the trade to occur - Zak (and other answers) point out that the shares being lent are compensated for by an initial fee on the transaction + the chance for interest during the period that the shares are owed for." }, { "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": "137465", "title": "", "text": "I'm fairly convinced there is no difference whatsoever between dividend payment and capital appreciation. It only makes financial sense for the stock price to be decreased by the dividend payment so over the course of any specified time interval, without the dividend the stock price would have been that much higher were the dividends not paid. Total return is equal. I think this is like so many things in finance that seem different but actually aren't. If a stock does not pay a dividend, you can synthetically create a dividend by periodically selling shares. Doing this would incur periodic trade commissions, however. That does seem like a loss to the investor. For this reason, I do see some real benefit to a dividend. I'd rather get a check in the mail than I would have to pay a trade commission, which would offset a percentage of the dividend. Does anybody know if there are other hidden fees associated with dividend payments that might offset the trade commissions? One thought I had was fees to the company to establish and maintain a dividend-payment program. Are there significant administrative fees, banking fees, etc. to the company that materially decrease its value? Even if this were the case, I don't know how I'd detect or measure it because there's such a loose association between many corporate financials (e.g. cash on hand) and stock price." }, { "docid": "132111", "title": "", "text": "\"Yes- you do not realize gains or losses until you actually sell the stock. After you sell the initial stocks/bonds you have realized the gain. When you buy the new, different stocks you haven't realized anything until you then sell those. There is one exception to this, called the \"\"Wash-Sale Rule\"\". From Investopedia.com: With the wash-sale rule, the IRS disallows a loss deduction from the sale of a security if a ‘substantially identical security' was purchased within 30 days before or after the sale. The wash-sale period is actually 61 days, consisting of the 30 days before and the 30 days after the date of the sale. For example, if you bought 100 shares of IBM on December 1 and then sold 100 shares of IBM on December 15 at a loss, the loss deduction would not be allowed. Similarly, selling IBM on December 15 and then buying it back on January 10 of the following year does not permit a deduction. The wash-sale rule is designed to prevent investors from making trades for the sole purpose of avoiding taxes.\"" }, { "docid": "121622", "title": "", "text": "\"BigCo is selling new shares and receives the money from Venturo. If Venturo is offering $250k for 25% of the company, then the valuation that they are agreeing on is a value of $1m for the company after the new investment is made. If Jack is the sole owner of one million shares before the new investment, then BigCo sells 333,333 shares to Venturo for $250k. The new total number of shares of BigCo is 1,333,333; Venturo holds 25%, and Jack holds 75%. The amount that Jack originally invested in the company is irrelevant. At the moment of the sale, the Venturo and Jack agree that Jack's stake is worth $750k. The value of Jack's stake may have gone up, but he owes no capital gains tax, because he hasn't realized any of his gains yet. Jack hasn't sold any of his stake. You might think that he has, because he used to hold 100% and now he holds 75%. However, the difference is that the company is worth more than was before the sale. So the value of his stake was unchanged immediately before and after the sale. Jack agrees to this because the company needs this additional capital in order to meet its potential. (See \"\"Why is stock dilution legal?\"\") For further explanation and another example of this, see the question \"\"If a startup receives investment money, does the startup founder/owner actually gain anything?\"\" Your other scenario, where Venturo purchases existing shares directly from Jack, is not practical in this situation. If Jack sells his existing shares, you are correct that the company does not gain any additional capital. An investor would not want to invest in the company this way, because the company is struggling and needs new capital.\"" }, { "docid": "363043", "title": "", "text": "\"A covered call risks the disparity between the purchase price and the potential forced or \"\"called\"\" sale price less the premium received. So buy a stock for $10.00 believing it will drop you or not rise above $14.00 for a given period of days. You sell a call for a $1.00 agreeing to sell your stock for $14.00 and your wrong...the stock rises and at 14.00 or above during the option period the person who paid you the $1.00 premium gets the stock for a net effective price of $15.00. You have a gain of 5$. Your hypothecated loss is unlimited in that the stock could go to $1mil a share. That loss is an opportunity loss you still had a modest profit in actual $. The naked call is a different beast. you get the 1.00 in commission to sell a stock you don't own but must pay for that right. so lets say you net .75 in commission per share after your sell the option. as long as the stock trades below $14.00 during the period of the option you sold your golden. It rises above the strike price you must now buy that stock at market to fill the order when the counter party choses to exercise the option which results in a REAL loss of 100% of the stocks market price less the .75 a share you made. in the scenarios a 1000 shares that for up $30.00 a share over the strike price make you $5,000 in a covered call and lose you $29,250 in a naked call.Naked calls are speculative. Covered calls are strategic.\"" }, { "docid": "108671", "title": "", "text": "Fidelity, Charles Schwab, TDA, and just about every make online brokerage gives you massive amounts of free trades each year and when you sign up. Pretty much the same as 100+ free trades /yr over a 10 year period. Also, you get commission-free trade for the most popular ETFs, which is much more important. Lastly, if you care about free trades, you're probably investing poorly. Non-professionals shouldn't be making that many non-ETF trades in a year. Professional traders wouldn't blink over a tiny $5-10 commission fee." }, { "docid": "346398", "title": "", "text": "Do not do investing with a bank. Do investing with a low cost investment company like Vanguard, Fidelity, or Charles Schwab. The lower the expenses of the fund the better. The additional money your account earns because of lower overhead expenses is so dramatic over the course of your investing it is mind boggling to me. The lower the expenses, the more of your money you keep, which feeds the power of compound interest. http://www.fool.com/investing/mutual-funds/2008/09/03/this-fund-charges-what.aspx" } ]

[ { "docid": "566591", "title": "", "text": "Simple Schwaab does not have actually your securities they have leased them out and have to borrow them back. all assets are linked with derivatives now. They show on the balance sheet but have to be untangled. Thats why the market drops disproportionally fast to the actual number of shares sold." } ]

[ { "docid": "314499", "title": "", "text": "It sounds like your looking for something like an offshore bank (e.g. an anonymous Swiss bank account). These don't really exist anymore. I think you should just open a small bank account in your home country (preferably one the reimburses your ATM fees, like Charles Schwab in the US). If it's a small amount of money, the authorities probably won't care and they won't be able to give you large penalties anyways." }, { "docid": "593445", "title": "", "text": "\"Brokerages offer you the convenience of buying and selling financial products. They are usually not exchanges themselves, but they can be. Typically there is an exchange and the broker sends orders to that exchange. The main benefit that brokers offer is a simpler commission structure. Not all brokers have their own liquidity, but brokers can have their own allotment of shares of a stock, for example, that they will sell you when you make an order, so that you get what you want faster. Regarding accounts at the exchanges to track actual ownership and transfer of assets, it is not safe to assume thats how that works. There are a lot of shortcomings in how the actual exchange works, since the settlement time is 1 - 3 business days, depending on the product (so upwards of 5 to 6 actual days). In a fast market, the asset can change hands many many times making the accounting completely incorrect for extended time periods. Better to not worry about that part, but if you'd like to read more about how that is regulated look up \"\"Failure To Deliver\"\" regulations on short selling to get a better understanding of market microstructure. It is a very antiquated system.\"" }, { "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": "179520", "title": "", "text": "Your question is unanswerable as you haven't provided enough information. I.e. If those shares cost $1000 and you have $50000 ( or any number above $1000) of cash available in the account then you can't possibly free ride. I think your understanding of the free ride rule is incorrect. Basically what this rule is stating is that you have to have the cash when the trade is placed in order to settle the trade. Otherwise you are taking on margin (which you can't do in a cash account). So at order entry you have to have the cash to cover the purchase so it's able to be settled. If you do, no problem and you can sell that stock before trade settlement. There is no law that says you have to hold it past trade settlement. However, you cannot spend the same dollar more than once before it settles. This site does a good job explaining this more throughly with examples: http://www.invest-faq.com/articles/trade-day-free-ride.html" }, { "docid": "189443", "title": "", "text": "Probably not, but they would have to remove old stock from the state after the one year grace period and they may have to entertain suits against them, which would probably end in settlements. In 2016 alone there was over 30 million [paid out in settlements.](https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/prop65/2016-summary-settlements.pdf?) I have read there is somewhat of a cottage industry for those who seek out prop 65 violations just for the purpose of suing the manufacturer. Then there is the cost associated with the maintenance of complying with the ever changing regulations. I'm sure there is more to it but I can see where a company would not want to label there products as cancer causing if it was not necessary. People might also be more hesitant to purchase a product for there household if it's labeled as cancer causing. Additionally, the US has its own hazard communication standards that require manufacturers to label any IARC know carcinogens as such. Edit: Plus Monsanto probably thinks it can do what it wants" }, { "docid": "121465", "title": "", "text": "\"Securities clearing and settlement is a complex topic - you can start by browsing relevant Wikipedia articles, and (given sufficient quantities of masochism and strong coffee) progress to entire technical books. You're correct - modern trade settlement systems are electronic and heavily streamlined. However, you're never going to see people hand over assets until they're sure that payment has cleared - given current payment systems, that means the fastest settlement time is going to be the next business day (so-called T+1 settlement), which is what's seen for heavily standardized instruments like standard options and government debt securities. Stocks present bigger obstacles. First, the seller has to locate the asset being sold & make sure they have clear title to it... which is tougher than it might seem, given the layers of abstraction/virtualization involved in the chain of ownership & custody, complicated in particular by \"\"rehypothecation\"\" involved in stock borrowing/lending for short sales... especially since stock borrow/lending record-keeping tends to be somewhat slipshod (cf. periodic uproar about \"\"naked shorting\"\" and \"\"failure to deliver\"\"). Second, the seller has to determine what exactly it is that they have sold... which, again, can be tougher than it might seem. You see, stocks are subject to all kinds of corporate actions (e.g. cash distributions, spin-offs, splits, liquidations, delistings...) A particular topic of keen interest is who exactly is entitled to large cash distributions - the buyer or the seller? Depending on the cutoff date (the \"\"ex-dividend date\"\"), the seller may need to deliver to the buyer just the shares of stock, or the shares plus a big chunk of cash - a significant difference in settlement. Determining the precise ex-dividend date (and so what exactly are the assets to be settled) can sometimes be very difficult... it's usually T-2, except in the case of large distributions, which are usually T+1, unless the regulatory authority has neglected to declare an ex-dividend date, in which case it defaults to standard DTC payment policy (i.e. T-2)... I've been involved in a few situations where the brokers involved were clueless, and full settlement of \"\"due bills\"\" for cash distributions to the buyer took several months of hard arguing. So yeah, the brokers want a little time to get their records in order and settle the trade correctly.\"" }, { "docid": "581866", "title": "", "text": "To try to answer the three explicit questions: Every share of stock is treated proportionately: each share is assigned the same dollar amount of investment (1/176th part of the contribution in the example), and has the same discount amount (15% of $20 or $25, depending on when you sell, usually). So if you immediately sell 120 shares at $25, you have taxable income on the gain for those shares (120*($25-$17)). Either selling immediately or holding for the long term period (12-18 mo) can be advantageous, just in different ways. Selling immediately avoids a risk of a decline in the price of the stock, and allows you to invest elsewhere and earn income on the proceeds for the next 12-18 months that you would not otherwise have had. The downside is that all of your gain ($25-$17 per share) is taxed as ordinary income. Holding for the full period is advantageous in that only the discount (15% of $20 or $25) will be taxed as ordinary income and the rest of the gain (sell price minus $20 or $25) will be taxed at long-term capital gain tax rates, which generally are lower than ordinary rates (all taxes are due in the year you do sell). The catch is you will sell at different price, higher or lower, and thus have a risk of loss (or gain). You will never be (Federally) double taxed in any scenario. The $3000 you put in will not be taxed after all is sold, as it is a return of your capital investment. All money you receive in excess of the $3000 will be taxed, in all scenarios, just potentially at different rates, ordinary or capital gain. (All this ignores AMT considerations, which you likely are not subject to.)" }, { "docid": "528699", "title": "", "text": "There is Free employer money on both sides of the tax fence for some employees. On the pretax side, your employer may provide you a match. If so, invest the maximum to get 100% of the match. On the after tax side, many companies offers a 15% discount on ESPP plans and a one year hold. My wife has such an employer. The one year hold is fine because it allows us to be taxed at Long Term Capital gains if the stock goes up which is lower than our current income bracket. After creating a seasoned pool of stocks that we could sell after the one year hold, we are then able to sell the same number of stocks purchased each month. This provides a 17.6% guaranteed gain on a monthly basis. How much would you purchase if you had a guaranteed 17.6% return. Our answer is 15% (our maximum allowed). The other trick is that while the employer is collecting the money, you will purchase the stock at the lowest day of the period. You will usually sell for even more than the purchase price unless the day purchased was the lowest day of month. The trick is to reinvest the money in tax free investments to balance out the pretax investing. Never leave the money in the plan. That is too much risk." }, { "docid": "485972", "title": "", "text": "\"There are many ways to trade. Rules based trading is practiced by professionals. You can indeed create a rule set to make buy and sell decisions based on the price action of your chosen security. I will direct you to a good website to further your study: I have found that systemtradersuccess.com is a well written blog, informative and not just a big sales pitch. You will see how to develop and evaluate trading systems. If you decide to venture down this path, a good book to read is Charles Wright's \"\"Trading As A Business.\"\" It will get a little technical, as it discusses how to develop trading systems using the Tradestation trading platform, which is a very powerful tool for advanced traders and comes with a significant monthly usage fee (~$99/mo). But you don't have to have tradestation to understand these concepts and with an intermediate level of spreadsheet skills, you can run your own backtests. Here is a trading system example, Larry Connors' \"\"2 period RSI system\"\", see how it is evaluated: http://systemtradersuccess.com/connors-2-period-rsi-update-2014/, and this video teaches a bit more about this particular trading system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_h9P8dqN4Y IMPORTANT: This is not a recommendation to use this or any specific trading system, nor is it a suggestion that using these tools or websites is a path to guaranteed profits. Trading is a very risky endeavor. You can easily lose huge sums of money. Good luck!\"" }, { "docid": "535317", "title": "", "text": "I am very happy with Charles Schwab. I use both their investing tools and banking tool, but I don't do much investing besides buy more shares a random mutual fund I purchase 4 years ago I did once need to call in about an IRA rollover and I got a person on the phone immediately who answered my questions and followed up as he said he would. It is anecdotal, but I am happy with them." }, { "docid": "137465", "title": "", "text": "I'm fairly convinced there is no difference whatsoever between dividend payment and capital appreciation. It only makes financial sense for the stock price to be decreased by the dividend payment so over the course of any specified time interval, without the dividend the stock price would have been that much higher were the dividends not paid. Total return is equal. I think this is like so many things in finance that seem different but actually aren't. If a stock does not pay a dividend, you can synthetically create a dividend by periodically selling shares. Doing this would incur periodic trade commissions, however. That does seem like a loss to the investor. For this reason, I do see some real benefit to a dividend. I'd rather get a check in the mail than I would have to pay a trade commission, which would offset a percentage of the dividend. Does anybody know if there are other hidden fees associated with dividend payments that might offset the trade commissions? One thought I had was fees to the company to establish and maintain a dividend-payment program. Are there significant administrative fees, banking fees, etc. to the company that materially decrease its value? Even if this were the case, I don't know how I'd detect or measure it because there's such a loose association between many corporate financials (e.g. cash on hand) and stock price." }, { "docid": "403755", "title": "", "text": "\"1) When it says \"\"an investment or mutual fund\"\", is a mutual fund not an investment? If no, what is the definition of an investment? A mutual fund is indeed an investment. The article probably mentions mutual funds separately from other investments because it is not uncommon for mutual funds to give you the option to automatically reinvest dividends and capital gains. 2) When it says \"\"In terms of stocks\"\", why does it only mention distribution of dividends but not distribution of capital gains? Since distributions are received as cash deposits they can be used to buy more of the stock. Capital gains, on the other hand, occur when an asset increases in value. These gains are realized when the asset is sold. In the case of stocks, reinvestment of capital gains doesn't make much sense since buying more stock after selling it to realize capital gains results in you owning as much stock as you had before you realized the gains. 3) When it says \"\"In terms of mutual funds\"\", it says about \"\"the reinvestment of distributions and dividends\"\". Does \"\"distributions\"\" not include distributions of \"\"dividends\"\"? why does it mention \"\"distributions\"\" parallel to \"\"dividends\"\"? Used in this setting, dividend and distribution are synonymous, which is highlighted by the way they are used in parallel. 4) Does reinvestment only apply to interest or dividends, but not to capital gain? Reinvestment only applies to dividends in the case of stocks. Mutual funds must distribute capital gains to shareholders, making these distributions essentially cash dividends, usually as a special end of year distribution. If you've requested automatic reinvestment, the fund will buy more shares with these capital gain distributions as well.\"" }, { "docid": "345597", "title": "", "text": "I would not advise any stock-picking or other active management (even using mutual funds that are actively managed). There is a large body of knowledge that needs learning before you even attempt that. Stay passive with index funds (either ETFs or (even better) low-cost passive mutual funds (because these prevent you from buying/selling). But I have not problem saying you can invest 100% in equity as long as your stomach can handle the price swings. If you freek out after a 25% drop that does not recover within a year, so you sell at the market bottom, then you are better off staying with a lot less risk. It is personal. There are a lot of valid reasons for young people to accept more risk - and equally valid reason why not. See list at http://www.retailinvestor.org/saving.html#norisk" }, { "docid": "477603", "title": "", "text": "How is the business organized? If as a General Partnership or LLC that reports as a partnership, you will be getting distributed to you each year your % ownership of the earnings or loss. But note, this is a paperwork transfer on the form K-1, which must then carryover to your tax return, it does not require the transfer of cash to you. If organized as an S-Corp, you should be holding shares of the company that you may sell back to the S-Corp, generally as outlined in the original articles of incorporation. The annual 'dividend' (earnings remaining after all expenses are paid) should be distributed to you in proportion to the shares you hold. If a C-Corp and there is only one class of stock that you also hold a percentage of, the only 'profits' that must be distributed proportionally to you are declared dividends by the board of directors. Most family run business are loosely formed with not much attention paid to the details of partnership agreements or articles of incorporation, and so don't handle family ownership disputes very well. From my experience, trying to find an amicable settlement is the best...and least expensive....approach to separation from the business. But if this can't be done or there is a sizable value to the business, you may have to get your own legal counsel." }, { "docid": "36193", "title": "", "text": "At the bottom of the page you linked to, NASDAQ provides a link to this page on nasdaqtrader.com, which states Each FINRA member firm is required to report its “total” short interest positions in all customer and proprietary accounts in NASDAQ-listed securities twice a month. These reports are used to calculate short interest in NASDAQ stocks. FINRA member firms are required to report their short positions as of settlement on (1) the 15th of each month, or the preceding business day if the 15th is not a business day, and (2) as of settlement on the last business day of the month.* The reports must be filed by the second business day after the reporting settlement date. FINRA compiles the short interest data and provides it for publication on the 8th business day after the reporting settlement date. The dates you are seeing are the dates the member firms settled their trades. In general (also from nasdaq.com), the settlement date is The date on which payment is made to settle a trade. For stocks traded on US exchanges, settlement is currently three business days after the trade." }, { "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": "522798", "title": "", "text": "There are 2 main types of brokers, full service and online (or discount). Basically the full service can provide you with advice in the form of recommendations on what to buy and sell and when, you call them up when you want to put an order in and the commissions are usually higher. Whilst an online broker usually doesn't provide advice (unless you ask for it at a specified fee), you place your orders online through the brokers website or trading platform and the commissions are usually much lower. The best thing to do when starting off is to go to your country's stock exchange, for example, The ASX in Sydney Australia, and they should have a list of available brokers. Some of the online brokers may have a practice or simulation account you can practice on, and they usually provide good educational material to help you get started. If you went with an online broker and wanted to buy Facebook on the secondary market (that is on the stock exchange after the IPO closes), you would log onto your brokers website or platform and go to the orders section. You would place a new order to buy say 100 Facebook shares at a certain price. You can use a market order, meaning the order will be immediately executed at the current market price and you will own the shares, or a limit price order where you select a price below the current market price and wait for the price to come down and hit your limit price before your order is executed and you get your shares. There are other types of orders available with different brokers which you will learn about when you log onto their website. You also need to be careful that you have the funds available to pay for the share at settlement, which is 3 business days after your order was executed. Some brokers may require you to have the funds deposited into an account which is linked to your trading account with them. To sell your shares you do the same thing, except this time you choose a sell order instead of a buy order. It becomes quite simple once you have done it a couple of times. The best thing is to do some research and get started. Good Luck." }, { "docid": "144349", "title": "", "text": "Depends on what you are, an investor or a speculator. An investor will look at an 'indefinite' investment period. A speculator will be after a fast buck. If you are an investor, buy your stock once as that will cost less commissions. After all, you'll sell your stock in 10, 15, 20 years." }, { "docid": "348445", "title": "", "text": "In short (pun intended), the shareholder lending the shares does not believe that the shares will fall, even though the potential investor does. The shareholder believes that the shares will rise. Because the two individuals believe that a different outcome will occur, they are able to make a trade. By using the available data in the market, they have arrived at a particular conclusion of the fair price for the trade, but each individual wants to be on the other side of it. Consider a simpler form of your question: Why would a shareholder agree to sell his/her shares? Why don't they just wait to sell, when the price is higher? After all, that is why the buyer wants to purchase the shares. On review, I realize I've only stated here why the original shareholder wouldn't simply sell and rebuy the share themselves (because they have a different view of the market). As to why they would actually allow the trade to occur - Zak (and other answers) point out that the shares being lent are compensated for by an initial fee on the transaction + the chance for interest during the period that the shares are owed for." } ]

[ { "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": "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": "426619", "title": "", "text": "\"the most important information that you provided was \"\"I'm 25 years old\"\". You have a few years to save for a rental property. Taking a loan against your 401k only invites a lot of paperwork and a good deal of risk. Not only the \"\"if I lose my job I have to pay it back (in 60 days)\"\", but it effectively locks you into your current job because changing jobs also causes the same repayment consequences. Do you really love your job that much that you would stick with it for the loan you have? (rhetorical) One could argue that real estate is a good way to diversify away from the stock market (assuming you have your 401k invested in stocks). Another way to get the same diversification is to invest in REITs through your 401k. Owning rental property isn't something to rush into. You really have to like it.The returns and headaches that accompany it can be a drag and it's harder to get out of then stocks.\"" }, { "docid": "384536", "title": "", "text": "Since you seem determined to consider this, I'd like to break down for you why I believe it is an incredibly risky proposition: 1) In general, picking individual stocks is risky. Individual stocks are by their nature not diversified assets, and a single company-wide calamity (a la Volkswagen emissions, etc.) can create huge distress to your investments. The way to mitigate this risk is of course to diversify (invest in other types of assets, such as other stocks, index funds, bonds, etc.). However, you must accept that this first step does have risks. 2) Picking stocks on the basis of financial information (called 'fundamental analysis') requires a very large amount of research and time dedication. It is one of the two main schools of thought in equity investing (as opposed to 'technical analysis', which pulls information directly from stock markets, such as price volatility). This is something that professional investors do for a living - and that means that they have an edge you do not have, unless you dedicate similar resources to this task. That information imbalance between you and professional traders creates additional risk where you make determinations 'against the grain'. 3) Any specific piece of public information (and this is public information, regardless of how esoteric it is) may be considered to be already 'factored into' public stock prices. I am a believer in market efficiency first and foremost. That means I believe that anything publically known related to a corporation ['OPEC just lowered their oil production! Exxon will be able to increase their prices!'] has already been considered by the professional traders currently buying and selling in the market. For your 'new' information to be valuable, it would need to have the ability to forecast earnings in a way not already considered by others. 4) I doubt you will be able to find the true nature of the commercial impact of a particular event, simply by knowing ship locations. So what if you know Alcoa is shipping Aluminium to Cuba - is this one of 5 shipments already known to the public? Is this replacement supplies that are covering a loss due to damaged goods previously sent? Is the boat only 1/3 full? Where this information gets valuable, is when it gets to the level of corporate espionage. Yes, if you had ship manifests showing tons of aluminum being sold, and if this was a massive 'secret' shipment about to be announced at the next shareholders' meeting, you could (illegally) profit from that information. 5) The more massive the company, the less important any single transaction is. That means the super freighters you may see transporting raw commodities could have dozens of such ships out at any given time, not to mention news of new mine openings and closures, price changes, volume reports, etc. etc. So the most valuable information would be smaller companies, where a single shipment might cover a month of revenue - but such a small company is (a) less likely to be public [meaning you couldn't buy shares in the company and profit off of the information]; and (b) less likely to be found by you in the giant sea of ship information. In summary, while you may have found some information that provides insight into a company's operations, you have not shown that this information is significant and also unknown to the market. Not to mention the risks associated with picking individual stocks in the first place. In this case, it is my opinion that you are taking on additional risk not adequately compensated by additional reward." }, { "docid": "513818", "title": "", "text": "Stock portfolios have diversifiable risk and undiversifiable risk. The market rewards investors for taking undiversifiable risk (e.g. owning an index of oil producing companies) and does not reward investors for assuming diversifiable risk (e.g. owning a single oil producing company). The market will not provide investors with any extra return for owning a single oil company when they can buy an oil index fund at no additional cost. Similarly, the market will not reward you for owning a small-cap index fund when you can purchase a globally diversified / capitalization diversified index fund at no additional cost. This article provides a more detailed description. The Vanguard Total World Stock Index Fund is a much better staring point for an equity portfolio. You will need to make sure that the asset allocation of your overall portfolio (e.g. stocks, bonds, P2P lending, cash) is consistent with your time horizon (5-10 years)." }, { "docid": "245616", "title": "", "text": "\"First off, the answer to your question is something EVERYONE would like to know. There are fund managers at Fidelity who will a pay $100 million fee to someone who can tell them a \"\"safe\"\" way to earn interest. The first thing to decide, is do you want to save money, or invest money. If you just want to save your money, you can keep it in cash, certificates of deposit or gold. Each has its advantages and disadvantages. For example, gold tends to hold its value over time and will always have value. Even if Russia invades Switzerland and the Swiss Franc becomes worthless, your gold will still be useful and spendable. As Alan Greenspan famously wrote long ago, \"\"Gold is always accepted.\"\" If you want to invest money and make it grow, yet still have the money \"\"fluent\"\" which I assume means liquid, your main option is a major equity, since those can be readily bought and sold. I know in your question you are reluctant to put your money at the \"\"mercy\"\" of one stock, but the criteria you have listed match up with an equity investment, so if you want to meet your goals, you are going to have to come to terms with your fears and buy a stock. Find a good blue chip stock that is in an industry with positive prospects. Stay away from stuff that is sexy or hyped. Focus on just one stock--that way you can research it to death. The better you understand what you are buying, the greater the chance of success. Zurich Financial Services is a very solid company right now in a nice, boring, highly profitable business. Might fit your needs perfectly. They were founded in 1872, one of the safest equities you will find. Nestle is another option. Roche is another. If you want something a little more risky consider Georg Fischer. Anyway, what I can tell you, is that your goals match up with a blue chip equity as the logical type of investment. Note on Diversification Many financial advisors will advise you to \"\"diversify\"\", for example, by investing in many stocks instead of just one, or even by buying funds that are invested in hundreds of stocks, or indexes that are invested in the whole market. I disagree with this philosophy. Would you go into a casino and divide your money, putting a small portion on each game? No, it is a bad idea because most of the games have poor returns. Yet, that is exactly what you do when you diversify. It is a false sense of safety. The proper thing to do is exactly what you would do if forced to bet in casino: find the game with the best return, get as good as you can at that game, and play just that one game. That is the proper and smart thing to do.\"" }, { "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": "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": "324914", "title": "", "text": "\"Without knowing anything else about you, I'd say I need more information. If all of your investments are in stocks, then that's not really diversified, regardless of how many stocks you own. There are other things to invest in besides stocks (and bonds, for that matter). What countries? \"\"International\"\" is pretty broad, and some countries are better bets than others at the moment. If you're old, I'd say very little of your money should be in stocks anyway. I'd also seek financial advice that is tailored to your goals, sophistication, etc.\"" }, { "docid": "336722", "title": "", "text": "Your question reminds me of a Will Rogers quote: buy some good stock, and hold it till it goes up, then sell it. If it don’t go up, don’t buy it. There's no way to prevent yourself from buying a stock that goes down. In fact all stocks go down at some times. The way to protect your long term investment is to diversify, which increases the chances that you have more stocks that go up than go down. So many advisors will encourage index funds, which have a low cost (which eats away at returns) and low rick (because of diversification). If you want to experiment with your criteria that's great, and I wish you luck, but Note that historically, very few managed funds (meaning funds that actively buy and sell stocks based on some set of criteria) outperform the market over long periods. So don't be afraid of some of your stocks losing - if you diversify enough, then statistically you should have more winners than losers. It's like playing blackjack. The goal is not to win every hand. The goal is to have more winning hands than losing hands." }, { "docid": "593879", "title": "", "text": "\"A diversified portfolio (such as a 60% stocks / 40% bonds balanced fund) is much more predictable and reliable than an all-stocks portfolio, and the returns are perfectly adequate. The extra returns on 100% stocks vs. 60% are 1.2% per year (historically) according to https://personal.vanguard.com/us/insights/saving-investing/model-portfolio-allocations To get those average higher stock returns, you need to be thinking 20-30 years (even 10 years is too short-term). Over the 20-30 years, you must never panic and go to cash, or you will destroy the higher returns. You must never get discouraged and stop saving, or you will destroy the higher returns. You have to avoid the panic and discouragement despite the likelihood that some 10-year period in your 20-30 years the stock market will go nowhere. You also must never have an emergency or other reason to withdraw money early. If you look at \"\"dry periods\"\" in stocks, like 2000 to 2011, a 60/40 portfolio made significant money and stocks went nowhere. A diversified portfolio means that price volatility makes you money (due to rebalancing) while a 100% stocks portfolio means that price volatility is just a lot of stress with no benefit. It's somewhat possible, probably, to predict dry periods in stocks; if I remember the statistics, about 50% of the variability in the market price 10 years out can be explained by normalized market valuation (normalized = adjusted for business cycle and abnormal profit margins). Some funds such as http://hussmanfunds.com/ are completely based on this, though a lot of money managers consider it. With a balanced portfolio and rebalancing, though, you don't have to worry about it very much. In my view, the proper goal is not to beat the market, nor match the market, nor is it to earn the absolute highest possible returns. Instead, the goal is to have the highest chance of financing your non-financial goals (such as retirement, or buying a house). To maximize your chances of supporting your life goals with your financial decisions, predictability is more important than maximized returns. Your results are primarily determined by your savings rate - which realistic investment returns will never compensate for if it's too low. You can certainly make a 40-year projection in which 1.2% difference in returns makes a big difference. But you have to remember that a projection in which value steadily and predictably compounds is not the same as real life, where you could have emergency or emotional factors, where the market will move erratically and might have a big plunge at just the wrong time (end of the 40 years), and so on. If your plan \"\"relies\"\" on the extra 1.2% returns then it's not a reasonable plan anyhow, in my opinion, since you can't count on them. So why suffer the stress and extra risk created by an all-stocks portfolio?\"" }, { "docid": "39569", "title": "", "text": "\"There's nothing to rebalance, the index fund rebalances itself to continue matching the index. However, you need to understand that such an investment is not diversified and you only invest in a very specific market, and very specific stocks on that market. S&P 500 is large (500 different companies, most of the time), but still not as broadly diversified as your retirement investment portfolio should be. You should talk to a financial adviser (CFP for example), many companies provide access to these for 401k plan participants. But in any case, I'd suggest considering \"\"target date\"\" funds - funds that are investing based on your expected retirement year, and become more conservative as you get closer to that year.\"" }, { "docid": "298985", "title": "", "text": "\"Is this amount an adequate starting amount to begin investing with? Yes. You can open an account at a brokerage with this amount. I'm not sure I would invest in individual stocks at this point. Which services should I use to start buying shares? (Currently my bank offers this service but I'm willing to use other sources) I can't make UK-specific recommendations, but I'd compare your bank's fees to those of a discount broker -- as well as the variety and level of service available. I would like to regularly increase the amount invested in shares. Is it worth doing this in say £200 increments? Take a look at the fees associated with each investment. Divide the fee by the increment to see what percent you'll lose to fees/commissions. Keep in mind that you have to gain more than that percentage to start earning a positive return on your investment. If you have access to fee-free automatic mutual fund investments, and you can commit to the £200 amount on a regular basis going forward, then this can be a completely free way of making these incremental investments. See also this answer on dollar cost averaging, and my comment on the other answer on that question for how fees impact returns. When buying shares should I focus on say two or three companies, or diversify more? I would diversify into two or three different index funds. Read up on asset allocation. For example, you might invest 1/3 of your balance into S&P 500 index fund, bond index fund, and MSCI EAFE index fund (but that's just a rough example, and not necessarily good for you). I highly recommend \"\"The Intelligent Asset Allocator\"\" by William Bernstein for excellent info on diversification and asset allocation.\"" }, { "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": "473586", "title": "", "text": "\"There obviously is not such a list of companies, because if there were the whole world would immediately invest in them. Their price would rise like a rocket and they would not be undervalued anymore. Some people think company A should be worth x per share, some people think it should be worth y. If the share price is currently higher than what someone thinks it should be, they sell it, and if it is lower than they think it should be they buy it. The grand effect of this all is that the current market price of the share is more or less the average of what all investors together think it should currently be worth. If you buy a single stock, hoping that it's undervalued and will rise, you may be right but you may equally well be wrong. It's smarter to diversify over lots of stocks to reduce the impact of this risk, it evens out. There are \"\"analysts\"\" who try to make a guess of which stocks will do better, and they give paid advice or you can invest in their funds -- but they invariably do worse than the average of the market as a whole, over the long term. So the best advice for amateurs is to invest in index funds that cover a huge range of companies and try to keep their costs very low.\"" }, { "docid": "323363", "title": "", "text": "In a word, no. Diversification is the first rule of investing. Your plan has poor diversification because it ignores most of the economy (large cap stocks). This means for the expected return your portfolio would get, you would bear an unnecessarily large amount of risk. Large cap and small cap stocks take turns outperforming each other. If you hold both, you have a safer portfolio because one will perform well while the other performs poorly. You will also likely want some exposure to the bond market. A simple and diversified portfolio would be a total market index fund and a total bond market fund. Something like 60% in the equity and 40% in the bonds would be reasonable. You may also want international exposure and maybe exposure to real estate via a REIT fund. You have expressed some risk-aversion in your post. The way to handle that is to take some of your money and keep it in your cash account and the rest into the diversified portfolio. Remember, when people add more and more asset classes (large cap, international, bonds, etc.) they are not increasing the risk of their portfolio, they are reducing it via diversification. The way to reduce it even more (after you have diversified) is to keep a larger proportion of it in a savings account or other guaranteed investment. BTW, your P2P lender investment seems like a great idea to me, but 60% of your money in it sounds like a lot." }, { "docid": "178875", "title": "", "text": "You are correct that over a short term there is no guarantee that one index will out perform another index. Every index goes through periods of feat and famine. That uis why the advice is to diversify your investments. Every index does have some small amount of management. For the parent index (the S&P 500 in this case) there is a process to divide all 500 stocks into growth and value, pure growth and pure value. This rebalancing of the 500 stocks occurs once a year. Rebalancing The S&P Style indices are rebalanced once a year in December. The December rebalancing helps set the broad universe and benchmark for active managers on an annual cycle consistent with active manager performance evaluation cycles. The rebalancing date is the third Friday of December, which coincides with the December quarterly share changes for the S&P Composite 1500. Style Scores, market-capitalization weights, growth and value midpoint averages, and the Pure Weight Factors (PWFs), where applicable across the various Style indices, are reset only once a year at the December rebalancing. Other changes to the U.S. Style indices are made on an as-needed basis, following the guidelines of the parent index. Changes in response to corporate actions and market developments can be made at any time. Constituent changes are typically announced for the parent index two-to-five days before they are scheduled to be implemented. Please refer to the S&P U.S. Indices Methodology document for information on standard index maintenance for the S&P 500, the S&P MidCap 400,the S&P SmallCap 600 and all related indices. As to which is better: 500, growth,value or growth and value? That depends on what you the investor is trying to do." }, { "docid": "191066", "title": "", "text": "Hopefully, before you invested in this stock, you evaluated the company. You looked at the financial information about the company and where the company was headed, and evaluated whether the stock was undervalued or overvalued. Hopefully, you determined that the stock was undervalued at the time you bought it. The thing to do now is to reevaluate the stock. Do you think the stock is overvalued or undervalued right now? If you didn't own it, would you buy it today? Instead of looking at the past performance of the stock, you want to try to determine which direction the stock will go from today. If you wouldn't buy it today at it's current price, then you should sell. If you have no idea how to do this evaluation, neither do I. For me, with the investing knowledge I have right now, investing in an individual stock would be way too risky. If you don't know how to evaluate a stock and determine if it is a good buy or not, then you should stay away from individual stocks and instead invest in stock mutual funds, which lower the risk by diversifying over lots of stocks." }, { "docid": "494928", "title": "", "text": "When credit locks up, junk bond prices fall rapidly, and you see more defaults. The opportunity to make money with junk is to buy a diversified collection of them when the market declines. Look at the charts from some of the mutual funds or ETFs like PIMCO High Yield Instl (PHIYX), or Northeast Investors (NTHEX). Very volatile stuff. Keep in mind that junk bonds are not representative of the economy as a whole -- they cluster in certain industries. Retail and financials are big industry segments for junk. Also keep in mind that the market for these things is not as liquid as the stock market. If your investment choice is really a sector investment, you might be better served by investing in sector funds with stocks that trade every day versus bonds whose market price may be difficult to determine." }, { "docid": "404949", "title": "", "text": "First, what Daniel Carson said. Second, if you're getting started, just make sure you are well diversified. Lots of growth stocks turn into dividend stocks over time-- Microsoft and Apple are the classic examples in this era. Someday, Google will pay a dividend too. If you're investing for the long haul, diversify and watch your taxes, and you'll make out better than nearly everyone else." } ]

[ { "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": "275925", "title": "", "text": "\"(Real) interest rates are so low because governments want people to use their money to improve the economy by spending or investing rather than saving. Their idea is that by consuming or investing you will help to create jobs that will employ people who will spend or invest their pay, and so on. If you want to keep this money for the future you don't want to spend it and interest rates make saving unrewarding therefore you ought to invest. That was the why, now the how. Inflation protected securities, mentioned in another answer, are the least risk way to do this. These are government guaranteed and very unlikely to default. On the other hand deflation will cause bigger problems for you and the returns will be pitiful compared with historical interest rates. So what else can be done? Investing in companies is one way of improving returns but risk starts to increase so you need to decide what risk profile is right for you. Investing in companies does not mean having to put money into the stock market either directly or indirectly (through funds) although index tracker funds have good returns and low risk. The corporate bond market is lower risk for a lesser reward than the stock market but with better returns than current interest rates. Investment grade bonds are very low risk, especially in the current economic climate and there are exchange traded funds (ETFs) to diversify more risk away. Since you don't mention willingness to take risk or the kind of amounts that you have to save I've tried to give some low risk options beyond \"\"buy something inflation linked\"\" but you need to take care to understand the risks of any product you buy or use, be they a bank account, TIPS, bond investments or whatever. Avoid anything that you don't fully understand.\"" }, { "docid": "240975", "title": "", "text": "First, you should diversify your portfolio. If your entire portfolio is in the Roth IRA, then you should eventually diversify that. However, if you have an IRA and a 401k, then it's perfectly fine for the IRA to be in a single fund. For example, I used my IRA to buy a riskier REIT that my 401k doesn't support. Second, if you only have a small amount currently invested, e.g. $5500, it may make sense to put everything in a single fund until you have enough to get past the low balance fees. It's not uncommon for funds to charge lower fees to someone who has $8000, $10,000, or $12,000 invested. Note that if you deposit $10,000 and the fund loses money, they'll usually charge you the rate for less than $10,000. So try to exceed the minimum with a decent cushion. A balanced fund may make sense as a first fund. That way they handle the diversification for you. A targeted fund is a special kind of balanced fund that changes the balance over time. Some have reported that targeted funds charge higher fees. Commissions on those higher fees may explain why your bank wants you to buy. I personally don't like the asset mixes that I've seen from targeted funds. They often change the stock/bond ratio, which is not really correct. The stock/bond ratio should stay the same. It's the securities (stocks and bonds) to monetary equivalents that should change, and that only starting five to ten years before retirement. Prior to that the only reason to put money into monetary equivalents is to provide time to pick the right securities fund. Retirees should maintain about a five year cushion in monetary equivalents so as not to be forced to sell into a bad market. Long term, I'd prefer low-load index funds. A bond fund and two or three stock funds. You might want to build your balance first though. It doesn't really make sense to have a separate fund until you have enough money to get the best fees. 70-75% stocks and 25-30% bonds (should add to 100%, e.g. 73% and 27%). Balance annually when you make your new deposit." }, { "docid": "477646", "title": "", "text": "\"Diversification is spreading your investments around so that one point of risk doesn't sink your whole portfolio. The effect of having a diversified portfolio is that you've always got something that's going up (though, the corollary is that you've also always got something going down... winning overall comes by picking investments worth investing in (not to state the obvious or anything :-) )) It's worth looking at the different types of risk you can mitigate with diversification: Company risk This is the risk that the company you bought actually sucks. For instance, you thought gold was going to go up, and so you bought a gold miner. Say there are only two -- ABC and XYZ. You buy XYZ. Then the CEO reveals their gold mine is played out, and the stock goes splat. You're wiped out. But gold does go up, and ABC does gangbusters, especially now they've got no competition. If you'd bought both XYZ and ABC, you would have diversified your company risk, and you would have been much better off. Say you invested $10K, $5K in each. XYZ goes to zero, and you lose that $5K. ABC goes up 120%, and is now worth $11K. So despite XYZ bankrupting, you're up 10% on your overall position. Sector risk You can categorize stocks by what \"\"sector\"\" they're in. We've already talked about one: gold miners. But there are many more, like utilities, bio-tech, transportation, banks, etc. Stocks in a sector will tend to move together, so you can be right about the company, but if the sector is out of favor, it's going to have a hard time going up. Lets extend the above example. What if you were wrong about gold going up? Then XYZ would still be bankrupt, and ABC would be making less money so they went down as well; say, 20%. At that point, you've only got $4K left. But say that besides gold, you also thought that banks were cheap. So, you split your investment between the gold miners and a couple of banks -- lets call them LMN and OP -- for $2500 each in XYZ, ABC, LMN, and OP. Say you were wrong about gold, but right about banks; LMN goes up 15%, and OP goes up 40%. At that point, your portfolio looks like this: XYZ start $2500 -100% end $0 ABC start $2500 +120% end $5500 LMN start $2500 +15% end $2875 OP start $2500 +40% end $3500 For a portfolio total of: $11,875, or a total gain of 18.75%. See how that works? Region/Country/Currency risk So, now what if everything's been going up in the USA, and everything seems so overpriced? Well, odds are, some area of the world is not over-bought. Like Brazil or England. So, you can buy some Brazilian or English companies, and diversify away from the USA. That way, if the market tanks here, those foreign companies aren't caught in it, and could still go up. This is the same idea as the sector risk, except it's location based, instead of business type based. There is an additional twist to this -- currencies. The Brits use the pound, and the Brazilians use the real. Most small investors don't think about this much, but the value of currencies, including our dollar, fluctuates. If the dollar has been strong, and the pound weak (as it has been, lately), then what happens if that changes? Say you own a British bank, and the dollar weakens and the pound strengthens. Even if that bank doesn't move at all, you would still make a gain. Example: You buy British bank BBB for 40 pounds a share, when each pound costs $1.20. Say after a while, BBB is still 40 pounds/share, but the dollar weakened and the pound strengthened, such that each pound is now worth $1.50. You could sell BBB, and because of the currency exchange once you've got it converted back to dollars you'd have a 25% gain. Market cap risk Sometimes big companies do well, sometimes it's small companies. The small caps are riskier but higher returning. When you think about it, small and mid cap stocks have much more \"\"room to run\"\" than large caps do. It's much easier to double a company worth $1 billion than it is to double a company worth $100 billion. Investment types Stocks aren't the only thing you can invest in. There's also bonds, convertible bonds, CDs, preferred stocks, options and futures. It can get pretty complicated, especially the last two. But each of these investment behaves differently; and again the idea is to have something going up all the time. The classical mix is stocks and bonds. The idea here is that when times are good, the stocks go up; when times are bad, the bonds go up (because they're safer, so more people want them), but mostly they're there to providing steady income and help keep your portfolio from cratering along with the stocks. Currently, this may not work out so well; stocks and bonds have been moving in sync for several years, and with interest rates so low they don't provide much income. So what does this mean to you? I'm going make some assumptions here based on your post. You said single index, self-managed, and don't lower overall risk (and return). I'm going to assume you're a small investor, young, you invest in ETFs, and the single index is the S&P 500 index ETF -- SPY. S&P 500 is, roughly, the 500 biggest companies in the USA. Further, it's weighted -- how much of each stock is in the index -- such that the bigger the company is, the bigger a percentage of the index it is. If slickcharts is right, the top 5 companies combined are already 11% of the index! (Apple, Microsoft, Exxon, Amazon, and Johnson & Johnson). The smallest, News Corp, is a measly 0.008% of the index. In other words, if all you're invested in is SPY, you're invested in a handfull of giant american companies, and a little bit of other stuff besides. To diversify: Company risk and sector risk aren't really relevant to you, since you want broad market ETFs; they've already got that covered. The first thing I would do is add some smaller companies -- get some ETFs for mid cap, and small cap value (not small cap growth; it sucks for structural reasons). Examples are IWR for mid-cap and VBR for small-cap value. After you've done that, and are comfortable with what you have, it may be time to branch out internationally. You can get ETFs for regions (such as the EU - check out IEV), or countries (like Japan - see EWJ). But you'd probably want to start with one that's \"\"all major countries that aren't the USA\"\" - check out EFA. In any case, don't go too crazy with it. As index investing goes, the S&P 500 is not a bad way to go. Feed in anything else a little bit at a time, and take the time to really understand what it is you're investing in. So for example, using the ETFs I mentioned, add in 10% each IWR and VBR. Then after you're comfortable, maybe add 10% EFA, and raise IWR to 20%. What the ultimate percentages are, of course, is something you have to decide for yourself. Or, you could just chuck it all and buy a single Target Date Retirement fund from, say, Vanguard or T. Rowe Price and just not worry about it.\"" }, { "docid": "513016", "title": "", "text": "\"There's no such thing as true \"\"passive income.\"\" You are being paid the risk free rate to delay consumption (i.e., the super low rate you are getting on savings accounts and CDs) and a higher rate to bear risk. You will not find truly risk-free investments that earn more than the types of investments you have been looking at...most likely you will not keep up with inflation in risk-free investments. For a person who is very risk averse but wants to make a little more money than the risk-free rate, the solution is not to invest completely in slightly risky things. Instead the best thing you can do is invest partially in a fully diversified portfolio. A diversified portfolio (containing stocks, bonds, etc) will earn you the most return for the given amount of risk. If you want very little risk, put very little in that portfolio and keep the rest in your CDs. Put 90% of your money in a CD or something and the other 10% in stocks/bonds. Or choose a different percentage. You can also buy real assets, like real estate, but you will find yourself taking a different type of risk and doing a different type of work with those assets.\"" }, { "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": "526664", "title": "", "text": "\"For starting with zero knowledge you certainly did a great job on research as you hit on most of the important points with your question. It seems like you have already saved up around six months of expenses in savings so it is a great time to look into investing. The hardest part of your question is actually one of the most important details. Investing in a way that minimizes your taxes is generally more important, in the end, than what assets you actually invest in (as long as you invest even semi-reasonably). The problem is that the interaction between your home country's tax system and the U.S. tax system can be complex. It's probably (likely?) still worth maxing out your 401(k) (IRA, SEP, 529 accounts if you qualify) to avoid taxes, but like this question from an Indian investor it may be worth seeing an investment professional about this. If you do, see a fee-based professional preferably one familiar with your country. If tax-advantaged accounts are not a good deal for you or if you max them out, a discount broker is probably a good second option for someone willing to do a bit of research like you. With this money investing in broadly-diversified, low fee, index mutual funds or exchange traded funds is generally recommended. Among other benefits, diversified funds make sure that if any particular company fails you don't feel too much pain. The advantages of low fees are fairly obvious and one very good reason why so many people recommend Vanguard on this site. A common mix for someone your age is mostly stocks (local and international) and some bonds. Though with how you talk about risk you may prefer more bonds. Some people recommend spicing this up a bit with a small amount of real estate (REITs), sometimes even other assets. The right portfolio of the above can change a lot given the person. The above mentioned adviser and/or more research can help here. If, in the future, you start to believe you will go back to your home country soon that may throw much of this advice out the window and you should definitely reevaluate then. Also, if you are interested in the math/stats behind the above advice \"\"A Random Walk Down Wall Street\"\" is a light read and a good place to start. Investing makes for a very interesting and reasonably profitable math/stats problem.\"" }, { "docid": "40424", "title": "", "text": "\"A \"\"Fund\"\" is generally speaking a collection of similar financial products, which are bundled into a single investment, so that you as an individual can buy a portion of the Fund rather than buying 50 portions of various products. e.g. a \"\"Bond Fund\"\" may be a collection of various corporate bonds that are bundled together. The performance of the Fund would be the aggregate of each individual item. Generally speaking Funds are like pre-packaged \"\"diversification\"\". Rather than take time (and fees) to buy 50 different stocks on the same stock index, you could buy an \"\"Index Fund\"\" which represents the values of all of those stocks. A \"\"Portfolio\"\" is your individual package of investments. ie: the 20k you have in bonds + the 5k you have in shares, + the 50k you have in \"\"Funds\"\" + the 100k rental property you own. You might split the definition further buy saying \"\"My 401(k) portfolio & my taxable portfolio & my real estate portfolio\"\"(etc.), to denote how those items are invested. The implication of \"\"Portfolio\"\" is that you have considered how all of your investments work together; ie: your 5k in stocks is not so risky, because it is only 5k out of your entire 185k portfolio, which includes some low risk bonds and funds. Another way of looking at it, is that a Fund is a special type of Portfolio. That is, a Fund is a portfolio, that someone will sell to someone else (see Daniel's answer below). For example: Imagine you had $5,000 invested in IBM shares, and also had $5,000 invested in Apple shares. Call this your portfolio. But you also want to sell your portfolio, so let's also call it a 'fund'. Then you sell half of your 'fund' to a friend. So your friend (let's call him Maurice) pays you $4,000, to invest in your 'Fund'. Maurice gives you $4k, and in return, you given him a note that says \"\"Maurice owns 40% of atp9's Fund\"\". The following month, IBM pays you $100 in dividends. But, Maurice owns 40% of those dividends. So you give him a cheque for $40 (some funds automatically reinvest dividends for their clients instead of paying them out immediately). Then you sell your Apple shares for $6,000 (a gain of $1,000 since you bought them). But Maurice owns 40% of that 6k, so you give him $2,400 (or perhaps, instead of giving him the money immediately, you reinvest it within the fund, and buy $6k of Microsoft shares). Why would you set up this Fund? Because Maurice will pay you a fee equal to, let's say, 1% of his total investment. Your job is now to invest the money in the Fund, in a way that aligns with what you told Maurice when he signed the contract. ie: maybe it's a tech fund, and you can only invest in big Tech companies. Maybe it's an Index fund, and your investment needs to exactly match a specific portion of the New York Stock Exchange. Maybe it's a bond fund, and you can only invest in corporate bonds. So to reiterate, a portfolio is a collection of investments (think of an artist's portfolio, being a collection of their work). Usually, people refer to their own 'portfolio', of personal investments. A fund is someone's portfolio, that other people can invest in. This allows an individual investor to give some of their decision making over to a Fund manager. In addition to relying on expertise of others, this allows the investor to save on transaction costs, because they can have a well-diversified portfolio (see what I did there?) while only buying into one or a few funds.\"" }, { "docid": "363120", "title": "", "text": "Firstly, I'm going to do what you said and analyze your question taking your entire family's finances into account. That means giving you an answer that maximizes your family's total wealth rather then just your own. If instead of that your question really was, should I let my parents buy me a house and live rent free, then obviously you should do that (assuming your parents can afford it and you aren't taking advantage people who need to be saving for retirement and not wasting it on a 25 y/o who should be able to support him / herself). This is really an easy question assuming you are willing to listen to math. Goto the new york times rent vs buy calculator and plug in the numbers: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/upshot/buy-rent-calculator.html Firstly, if you do what you say you want to do buy the house all cash and live there for 4 years, it would be the equivalent of paying 1151 / month in rent once you factor in transaction costs, taxes, opportunity costs, etc. Take a look at the calculator, it's very detailed. This is why you should never buy houses all cash (unless its a negotiating tactic in a hot market, and even then you should refi after). Mortgage rates are super low right now, all that money sitting in the house is appreciating at maybe the rate of inflation (assuming the house value isn't going down which it can very easily do if you don't maintain it, another cost you need to factor in). Instead, you could be invested in the stock market getting 8%, the lost opportunity cost there is huge. I'm not even considering your suggestion that you hang onto the house after you move out in 4 years. That's a terrible idea. Investment properties should be at a maximum value of 10x the yearly rent. I wouldn't pay more then 72K for a house / apartment that rents for only 600 / month (and even then I would look for a better deal, which you can find if you time things right). Don't believe me? Just do the numbers. Renting your 200K house for 600 / month is 7200 / year. Figure you'll need to spend 1% / year (I'm being optimistic here) on maintanence / vacancy (and I'm not even considering your time dealing with tenants). Plus another 1% or so on property tax. That's 4K / year, so your total profit is 3200 which is a return of only 1.6% on your 200K. You can get 1% in an ally savings account for comparison. Really you are much better off investing in a diversified portfolio. You only need 6 months living expenses in cash, so unless your family is ridicuouly wealthy (In which case you should be asking your financial planner what to do and not stack exchange), I have no idea why your parents have 200K sitting around in a savings account earning 0. Open a vanguard account for them and put that money in VTI and your family will be much better off 5 years from now then if you buy that money pit (err house). If risk is a concern, diversify more. I have some money invested with a robo advisor. They do charge a small fee, but it's set it and forget it with auto diversification and tax loss harvesting. Bottom line is, get that money invested in something, having it sitting in a bank account earning 0 is probably the second worst thing you could do with next to buying this house." }, { "docid": "423754", "title": "", "text": "\"I don't think you have your head in the right space - you seem to be thinking of these lifecycle funds like they're an annuity or a pension, but they're not. They're an investment. Specifically, they're a mutual fund that will invest in a collection of other mutual funds, which in turn invest in stock and bonds. Stocks go up, and stocks go down. Bonds go up, and bonds go down. How much you'll have in this fund next year is unknowable, much less 32 years from now. What you can know, is that saving regularly over the next 32 years and investing it in a reasonable, and diversified way in a tax sheltered account like that Roth will mean you have a nice chunk of change sitting there when you retire. The lifecycle funds exist to help you with that \"\"reasonable\"\" and \"\"diversified\"\" bit.They're meant to be one stop shopping for a retirement portfolio. They put your money into a diversified portfolio, then \"\"age\"\" the portfolio allocations over time to make it go from a high risk, (potentially) high reward allocation now to a lower risk, lower reward portfolio as you approach retirement. The idea is is that you want to shoot for making lots of money now, but when you're older, you want to focus more on keeping the money you have. Incidentally, kudos for getting into seriously saving for retirement when you're young. One of the biggest positive effects you can have on how much you retire with is simply time. The more time your money can sit there, the better. At 26, if you're putting away 10 percent into a Roth, you're doing just fine. If that 5k is more than 10 percent, you'll do better than fine. (That's a rule of thumb, but it's based on a lot of things I've read where people have gamed out various scenarios, as well as my own, cruder calculations I've done in the past)\"" }, { "docid": "593879", "title": "", "text": "\"A diversified portfolio (such as a 60% stocks / 40% bonds balanced fund) is much more predictable and reliable than an all-stocks portfolio, and the returns are perfectly adequate. The extra returns on 100% stocks vs. 60% are 1.2% per year (historically) according to https://personal.vanguard.com/us/insights/saving-investing/model-portfolio-allocations To get those average higher stock returns, you need to be thinking 20-30 years (even 10 years is too short-term). Over the 20-30 years, you must never panic and go to cash, or you will destroy the higher returns. You must never get discouraged and stop saving, or you will destroy the higher returns. You have to avoid the panic and discouragement despite the likelihood that some 10-year period in your 20-30 years the stock market will go nowhere. You also must never have an emergency or other reason to withdraw money early. If you look at \"\"dry periods\"\" in stocks, like 2000 to 2011, a 60/40 portfolio made significant money and stocks went nowhere. A diversified portfolio means that price volatility makes you money (due to rebalancing) while a 100% stocks portfolio means that price volatility is just a lot of stress with no benefit. It's somewhat possible, probably, to predict dry periods in stocks; if I remember the statistics, about 50% of the variability in the market price 10 years out can be explained by normalized market valuation (normalized = adjusted for business cycle and abnormal profit margins). Some funds such as http://hussmanfunds.com/ are completely based on this, though a lot of money managers consider it. With a balanced portfolio and rebalancing, though, you don't have to worry about it very much. In my view, the proper goal is not to beat the market, nor match the market, nor is it to earn the absolute highest possible returns. Instead, the goal is to have the highest chance of financing your non-financial goals (such as retirement, or buying a house). To maximize your chances of supporting your life goals with your financial decisions, predictability is more important than maximized returns. Your results are primarily determined by your savings rate - which realistic investment returns will never compensate for if it's too low. You can certainly make a 40-year projection in which 1.2% difference in returns makes a big difference. But you have to remember that a projection in which value steadily and predictably compounds is not the same as real life, where you could have emergency or emotional factors, where the market will move erratically and might have a big plunge at just the wrong time (end of the 40 years), and so on. If your plan \"\"relies\"\" on the extra 1.2% returns then it's not a reasonable plan anyhow, in my opinion, since you can't count on them. So why suffer the stress and extra risk created by an all-stocks portfolio?\"" }, { "docid": "176335", "title": "", "text": "\"You will invest 1000£ each month and the transaction fee is 10£ per trade, so buying a bunch of stocks each month would not be wise. If you buy 5 stocks, then transaction costs will eat up 5% of your investment. So if you insist on taking this approach, you should probably only buy one or two stocks a month. It sounds like you're interested in active investing & would like a diversified portfolio, so maybe the best approach for you is Core & Satellite Portfolio Management. Start by creating a well diversified portfolio \"\"core\"\" with index funds. Once you have a solid core, make some active investment decisions with the \"\"satellite\"\" portion of the portfolio. You can dollar cost average into the core and make active bets when the opportunity arises, so you're not killed by transaction fees.\"" }, { "docid": "324914", "title": "", "text": "\"Without knowing anything else about you, I'd say I need more information. If all of your investments are in stocks, then that's not really diversified, regardless of how many stocks you own. There are other things to invest in besides stocks (and bonds, for that matter). What countries? \"\"International\"\" is pretty broad, and some countries are better bets than others at the moment. If you're old, I'd say very little of your money should be in stocks anyway. I'd also seek financial advice that is tailored to your goals, sophistication, etc.\"" }, { "docid": "204866", "title": "", "text": "What are the risks pertaining to timing on long term index investments? The risks are countless for any investment strategy. If you invest in US stocks, and prices revert to the long term cyclically adjusted average, you will lose a lot of money. If you invest in cash, inflation may outpace interest rates and you will lose money. If you invest in gold, the price might go down and you will lose money. It's best to study history and make a reasonable decision (i.e. invest in stocks). Here are long term returns by asset class, computed by Jeremy Siegel: $1 invested in equities in 1801 equals $15.22 today if was not invested and $8.8 million if it was invested in stocks. This is the 'magic of compound interest' and cash / bonds have not been nearly as magical as stocks historically. 2) How large are these risks? The following chart shows the largest drawdowns (decreases in the value of an asset) since 1970 (source): Asset prices decrease in value frequently. Financial assets are volatile, but historically, they have increased over time, enabling investors to earn compounded returns (exponential growth of money is how to get rich). I personally view drawdowns as an excellent time to buy - it's like going on a shopping spree when everything in the store is discounted. 3) In case I feel not prepared to take these risks, how can I avoid them? The optimal asset allocation depends on the ability to take risk and your tolerance for risk. You are young and have a long investment horizon, so if stocks go down, you will have plenty of time to wait for them to go back up (if you're smart, you'll buy more stocks when they go down because they're cheap), so your ability to bear risk is high. From your description, it seems like you have a low risk tolerance (despite a high ability to be exposed to risk). Here's the return of various asset classes and how the average investor has fared over the last 20 years (source): Get educated (read Common Sense on Mutual Funds, A Random Walk Down Wall Street, etc.) and don't be average! Closing words: Investing in a globally diversified portfolio with a dollar cost averaging strategy is the best strategy for most investors. For investors that are unable to stay rational when markets are volatile (i.e. the investor uncontrollably sells their stocks when stocks decrease 20%), a more conservative asset allocation is recommended. Due to the nature of compounded interest, a conservative portfolio is likely to have a much lower future value." }, { "docid": "290831", "title": "", "text": "The catch is that you're doing a form of leveraged investing. In other words, you're gambling on the stock market using money that you've borrowed. While it's not as dangerous as say, getting money from a loan shark to play blackjack in Vegas, there is always the chance that markets can collapse and your investment's value will drop rapidly. The amount of risk really depends on what specific investments you choose and how diversified they are - if you buy only Canadian stocks then you're at risk of losing a lot if something happened to our economy. But if your Canadian equities only amount to 3.6% of your total (which is Canada's share of the world market), and you're holding stocks in many different countries then the diversification will reduce your overall risk. The reason I mention that is because many people using the Smith Maneuver are only buying Canadian high-yield dividend stocks, so that they can use the dividends to accelerate the Smith Maneuver process (use the dividends to pay down the mortgage, then borrow more and invest it). They prefer Canadian equities because of preferential tax treatment of the dividend income (in non-registered accounts). But if something happened to those Canadian companies, they stand to lose much of the investment value and suddenly they have the extra debt (the amount borrowed from a HELOC, or from a re-advanceable mortgage) without enough value in the investments to offset it. This could mean that they will not be able to pay off the mortgage by the time they retire!" }, { "docid": "433003", "title": "", "text": "Using a simple investment calculator to get a sense of scale here, to have 70k total, including the 500 a month invested, after ten years you just need returns of 2%. To earn 70k on top of the money invested you would need returns over 20%. To do that in five years you would need over 50% annual return. That is quite a big difference. Annualized returns of 20% would require high risk and a very large amount of time invested, skill and luck. 2% returns can be nearly guaranteed without much effort. I would encourage you to think about your money more holistically. If you get very unlucky with investments and don't make any money will you not go on the vacations even if your income allows? That doesn't make a lot of sense. As always, spend all your money with the current and future in mind. Investment return Euros are no different from any other Euros. At that point, the advice is the same for all investors try to get as much return as possible for the risk you are comfortable with. You seem to have a high tolerance for risk. Generally, for investors with a high risk tolerance a broadly diversified portfolio of stocks (with maybe a small amount of bonds, other investments) will give the most return over the long term for the risk taken. After that generally the next most useful way to boost your returns is to try to avoid taxes which is why we talk about 401(k)s so much around here. Each European country has different tax law, but please ask questions here about your own country as well as you mention money.se could use more ex-US questions." }, { "docid": "309387", "title": "", "text": "The risk-reward relation depends on what you are changing. In the most cases people ask about, it is not linear but I will give examples of both. Nonlinear case 1: As you diversify your portfolio, the firm-specific risks of various stocks cancel each other out without necessarily affecting the expected return of the portfolio. Reduction in risk without any loss in returns--very nonlinear. Nonlinear case 2: If you are changing the weights in your portfolio to move along the efficient frontier, then you the risk-reward relation is a hyperbola, which is nonlinear. Nonlinear case 3: If you are changing the weights in your portfolio to move away from the efficient frontier, then you increase risk without adding a fully compensatory amount of return. There could be many paths along the risk-reward plane, but generally it will not be linear in the sense that it will not be on the same line as your initial, efficient, portfolio and your savings account. Linear case 1: The most common sense in which we think of the risk-reward relation being linear is when the thing you are changing is the size of your investment. If you take money out of savings to put in your fully diversified portfolio without changing the relative weights, your expected returns will increase linearly. Linear case 2: If you believe the CAPM, then the expected return of an asset stock is linearly proportional to the market risk of the firm. If you could change the market risk of a single asset without changing anything else, then you would linearly change its expected return. The general rule about the risk/reward relation is this: If you are changing the size of your investment, the relation is linear. If you are changing its composition, the relation is nonlinear" }, { "docid": "312591", "title": "", "text": "\"Funds - especially index funds - are a safe way for beginning investors to get a diversified investment across a lot of the stock market. They are not the perfect investment, but they are better than the majority of mutual funds, and you do not spend a lot of money in fees. Compared to the alternative - buying individual stocks based on what a friend tells you or buying a \"\"hot\"\" mutual fund - it's a great choice for a lot of people. If you are willing to do some study, you can do better - quite a bit better - with common stocks. As an individual investor, you have some structural advantages; you can take significant (to you) positions in small-cap companies, while this is not practical for large institutional investors or mutual fund managers. However, you can also lose a lot of money quickly in individual stocks. It pays to go slow and to your homework, however, and make sure that you are investing, not speculating. I like fool.com as a good place to start, and subscribe to a couple of their newsletters. I will note that investing is not for the faint of heart; to do well, you may need to do the opposite of what everybody else is doing; buying when the market is down and selling when the market is high. A few people mentioned the efficient market hypothesis. There is ample evidence that the market is not efficient; the existence of the .com and mortgage bubbles makes it pretty obvious that the market is often not rationally valued, and a couple of hedge funds profited in the billions from this.\"" }, { "docid": "336722", "title": "", "text": "Your question reminds me of a Will Rogers quote: buy some good stock, and hold it till it goes up, then sell it. If it don’t go up, don’t buy it. There's no way to prevent yourself from buying a stock that goes down. In fact all stocks go down at some times. The way to protect your long term investment is to diversify, which increases the chances that you have more stocks that go up than go down. So many advisors will encourage index funds, which have a low cost (which eats away at returns) and low rick (because of diversification). If you want to experiment with your criteria that's great, and I wish you luck, but Note that historically, very few managed funds (meaning funds that actively buy and sell stocks based on some set of criteria) outperform the market over long periods. So don't be afraid of some of your stocks losing - if you diversify enough, then statistically you should have more winners than losers. It's like playing blackjack. The goal is not to win every hand. The goal is to have more winning hands than losing hands." }, { "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": "273718", "title": "", "text": "Any investor can make a bad bet, even Buffett. Even if you have done every bit of research on an investment possible you are exposed to random external events.. acts of god, and outright fraud." } ]

[ { "docid": "309387", "title": "", "text": "The risk-reward relation depends on what you are changing. In the most cases people ask about, it is not linear but I will give examples of both. Nonlinear case 1: As you diversify your portfolio, the firm-specific risks of various stocks cancel each other out without necessarily affecting the expected return of the portfolio. Reduction in risk without any loss in returns--very nonlinear. Nonlinear case 2: If you are changing the weights in your portfolio to move along the efficient frontier, then you the risk-reward relation is a hyperbola, which is nonlinear. Nonlinear case 3: If you are changing the weights in your portfolio to move away from the efficient frontier, then you increase risk without adding a fully compensatory amount of return. There could be many paths along the risk-reward plane, but generally it will not be linear in the sense that it will not be on the same line as your initial, efficient, portfolio and your savings account. Linear case 1: The most common sense in which we think of the risk-reward relation being linear is when the thing you are changing is the size of your investment. If you take money out of savings to put in your fully diversified portfolio without changing the relative weights, your expected returns will increase linearly. Linear case 2: If you believe the CAPM, then the expected return of an asset stock is linearly proportional to the market risk of the firm. If you could change the market risk of a single asset without changing anything else, then you would linearly change its expected return. The general rule about the risk/reward relation is this: If you are changing the size of your investment, the relation is linear. If you are changing its composition, the relation is nonlinear" }, { "docid": "513818", "title": "", "text": "Stock portfolios have diversifiable risk and undiversifiable risk. The market rewards investors for taking undiversifiable risk (e.g. owning an index of oil producing companies) and does not reward investors for assuming diversifiable risk (e.g. owning a single oil producing company). The market will not provide investors with any extra return for owning a single oil company when they can buy an oil index fund at no additional cost. Similarly, the market will not reward you for owning a small-cap index fund when you can purchase a globally diversified / capitalization diversified index fund at no additional cost. This article provides a more detailed description. The Vanguard Total World Stock Index Fund is a much better staring point for an equity portfolio. You will need to make sure that the asset allocation of your overall portfolio (e.g. stocks, bonds, P2P lending, cash) is consistent with your time horizon (5-10 years)." }, { "docid": "15169", "title": "", "text": "\"The difference between dividend and growth in mutual funds has to do with the types of stocks the mutual fund invests in. Typically a company in the early stages are considered growth investments. In this phase the company needs to keep most of its profits to reinvest in the business. Typically once a company gets a significant size the company's growth prospects are not as good so the company pays some of its profits in the form of a dividend to the shareholders. As far as which is the best buy is totally a personal choice. There will be times when one is better then the other. Most likely you will want to \"\"diversify\"\" and invest in both types.\"" }, { "docid": "593879", "title": "", "text": "\"A diversified portfolio (such as a 60% stocks / 40% bonds balanced fund) is much more predictable and reliable than an all-stocks portfolio, and the returns are perfectly adequate. The extra returns on 100% stocks vs. 60% are 1.2% per year (historically) according to https://personal.vanguard.com/us/insights/saving-investing/model-portfolio-allocations To get those average higher stock returns, you need to be thinking 20-30 years (even 10 years is too short-term). Over the 20-30 years, you must never panic and go to cash, or you will destroy the higher returns. You must never get discouraged and stop saving, or you will destroy the higher returns. You have to avoid the panic and discouragement despite the likelihood that some 10-year period in your 20-30 years the stock market will go nowhere. You also must never have an emergency or other reason to withdraw money early. If you look at \"\"dry periods\"\" in stocks, like 2000 to 2011, a 60/40 portfolio made significant money and stocks went nowhere. A diversified portfolio means that price volatility makes you money (due to rebalancing) while a 100% stocks portfolio means that price volatility is just a lot of stress with no benefit. It's somewhat possible, probably, to predict dry periods in stocks; if I remember the statistics, about 50% of the variability in the market price 10 years out can be explained by normalized market valuation (normalized = adjusted for business cycle and abnormal profit margins). Some funds such as http://hussmanfunds.com/ are completely based on this, though a lot of money managers consider it. With a balanced portfolio and rebalancing, though, you don't have to worry about it very much. In my view, the proper goal is not to beat the market, nor match the market, nor is it to earn the absolute highest possible returns. Instead, the goal is to have the highest chance of financing your non-financial goals (such as retirement, or buying a house). To maximize your chances of supporting your life goals with your financial decisions, predictability is more important than maximized returns. Your results are primarily determined by your savings rate - which realistic investment returns will never compensate for if it's too low. You can certainly make a 40-year projection in which 1.2% difference in returns makes a big difference. But you have to remember that a projection in which value steadily and predictably compounds is not the same as real life, where you could have emergency or emotional factors, where the market will move erratically and might have a big plunge at just the wrong time (end of the 40 years), and so on. If your plan \"\"relies\"\" on the extra 1.2% returns then it's not a reasonable plan anyhow, in my opinion, since you can't count on them. So why suffer the stress and extra risk created by an all-stocks portfolio?\"" }, { "docid": "178875", "title": "", "text": "You are correct that over a short term there is no guarantee that one index will out perform another index. Every index goes through periods of feat and famine. That uis why the advice is to diversify your investments. Every index does have some small amount of management. For the parent index (the S&P 500 in this case) there is a process to divide all 500 stocks into growth and value, pure growth and pure value. This rebalancing of the 500 stocks occurs once a year. Rebalancing The S&P Style indices are rebalanced once a year in December. The December rebalancing helps set the broad universe and benchmark for active managers on an annual cycle consistent with active manager performance evaluation cycles. The rebalancing date is the third Friday of December, which coincides with the December quarterly share changes for the S&P Composite 1500. Style Scores, market-capitalization weights, growth and value midpoint averages, and the Pure Weight Factors (PWFs), where applicable across the various Style indices, are reset only once a year at the December rebalancing. Other changes to the U.S. Style indices are made on an as-needed basis, following the guidelines of the parent index. Changes in response to corporate actions and market developments can be made at any time. Constituent changes are typically announced for the parent index two-to-five days before they are scheduled to be implemented. Please refer to the S&P U.S. Indices Methodology document for information on standard index maintenance for the S&P 500, the S&P MidCap 400,the S&P SmallCap 600 and all related indices. As to which is better: 500, growth,value or growth and value? That depends on what you the investor is trying to do." }, { "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": "426619", "title": "", "text": "\"the most important information that you provided was \"\"I'm 25 years old\"\". You have a few years to save for a rental property. Taking a loan against your 401k only invites a lot of paperwork and a good deal of risk. Not only the \"\"if I lose my job I have to pay it back (in 60 days)\"\", but it effectively locks you into your current job because changing jobs also causes the same repayment consequences. Do you really love your job that much that you would stick with it for the loan you have? (rhetorical) One could argue that real estate is a good way to diversify away from the stock market (assuming you have your 401k invested in stocks). Another way to get the same diversification is to invest in REITs through your 401k. Owning rental property isn't something to rush into. You really have to like it.The returns and headaches that accompany it can be a drag and it's harder to get out of then stocks.\"" }, { "docid": "551719", "title": "", "text": "\"The standard low-risk/gain very-short-term parking spot these days tends to be a money market account. However, you have only mentioned stock. For good balance, your portfolio should consider the bond market too. Consider adding a bond index fund to diversify the basic mix, taking up much of that 40%. This will also help stabilize your risk since bonds tend to move opposite stocks (prperhaps just because everyone else is also using them as the main alternative, though there are theoretical arguments why this should be so.) Eventually you may want to add a small amount of REIT fund to be mix, but that's back on the higher risk side. (By the way: Trying to guess when the next correction will occur is usually not a winning strategy; guesses tend to go wrong as often as they go right, even for pros. Rather than attempting to \"\"time the market\"\", pick a strategic mix of investments and rebalance periodically to maintain those ratios. There has been debate here about \"\"dollar-cost averaging\"\" -- see other answers -- but that idea may argue for investing and rebalancing in more small chunks rather than a few large ones. I generally actively rebalance once a year or so, and between those times let maintainng the balance suggest which fund(s) new money should go into -- minimal effort and it has worked quite well enough.,)\"" }, { "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": "473586", "title": "", "text": "\"There obviously is not such a list of companies, because if there were the whole world would immediately invest in them. Their price would rise like a rocket and they would not be undervalued anymore. Some people think company A should be worth x per share, some people think it should be worth y. If the share price is currently higher than what someone thinks it should be, they sell it, and if it is lower than they think it should be they buy it. The grand effect of this all is that the current market price of the share is more or less the average of what all investors together think it should currently be worth. If you buy a single stock, hoping that it's undervalued and will rise, you may be right but you may equally well be wrong. It's smarter to diversify over lots of stocks to reduce the impact of this risk, it evens out. There are \"\"analysts\"\" who try to make a guess of which stocks will do better, and they give paid advice or you can invest in their funds -- but they invariably do worse than the average of the market as a whole, over the long term. So the best advice for amateurs is to invest in index funds that cover a huge range of companies and try to keep their costs very low.\"" }, { "docid": "191066", "title": "", "text": "Hopefully, before you invested in this stock, you evaluated the company. You looked at the financial information about the company and where the company was headed, and evaluated whether the stock was undervalued or overvalued. Hopefully, you determined that the stock was undervalued at the time you bought it. The thing to do now is to reevaluate the stock. Do you think the stock is overvalued or undervalued right now? If you didn't own it, would you buy it today? Instead of looking at the past performance of the stock, you want to try to determine which direction the stock will go from today. If you wouldn't buy it today at it's current price, then you should sell. If you have no idea how to do this evaluation, neither do I. For me, with the investing knowledge I have right now, investing in an individual stock would be way too risky. If you don't know how to evaluate a stock and determine if it is a good buy or not, then you should stay away from individual stocks and instead invest in stock mutual funds, which lower the risk by diversifying over lots of stocks." }, { "docid": "566069", "title": "", "text": "The simplest way is to invest in a few ETFs, depending on your tolerance for risk; assuming you're very short-term risk tolerant you can invest almost all in a stock ETF like VOO or VTI. Stock market ETFs return close to 10% (unadjusted) over long periods of time, which will out-earn almost any other option and are very easy for a non-finance person to invest in (You don't trade actively - you leave the money there for years). If you want to hedge some of your risk, you can also invest in Bond funds, which tend to move up in stock market downturns - but if you're looking for the long term, you don't need to put much there. Otherwise, try to make sure you take advantage of tax breaks when you can - IRAs, 401Ks, etc.; most of those will have ETFs (whether Vanguard or similar) available to invest in. Look for funds that have low expense ratios and are fairly diversified (ie, don't just invest in one small sector of the economy); as long as the economy continues to grow, the ETFs will grow." }, { "docid": "293679", "title": "", "text": "Googling vanguard target asset allocation led me to this page on the Bogleheads wiki which has detailed breakdowns of the Target Retirement funds; that page in turn has a link to this Vanguard PDF which goes into a good level of detail on the construction of these funds' portfolios. I excerpt: (To the question of why so much weight in equities:) In our view, two important considerations justify an expectation of an equity risk premium. The first is the historical record: In the past, and in many countries, stock market investors have been rewarded with such a premium. ... Historically, bond returns have lagged equity returns by about 5–6 percentage points, annualized—amounting to an enormous return differential in most circumstances over longer time periods. Consequently, retirement savers investing only in “safe” assets must dramatically increase their savings rates to compensate for the lower expected returns those investments offer. ... The second strategic principle underlying our glidepath construction—that younger investors are better able to withstand risk—recognizes that an individual’s total net worth consists of both their current financial holdings and their future work earnings. For younger individuals, the majority of their ultimate retirement wealth is in the form of what they will earn in the future, or their “human capital.” Therefore, a large commitment to stocks in a younger person’s portfolio may be appropriate to balance and diversify risk exposure to work-related earnings (To the question of how the exact allocations were decided:) As part of the process of evaluating and identifying an appropriate glide path given this theoretical framework, we ran various financial simulations using the Vanguard Capital Markets Model. We examined different risk-reward scenarios and the potential implications of different glide paths and TDF approaches. The PDF is highly readable, I would say, and includes references to quant articles, for those that like that sort of thing." }, { "docid": "275334", "title": "", "text": "If you are looking for an index index fund, I know vanguard offers their Star fund which invests in 11 other funds of theirs and is diversified across stocks, bonds, and short term investments." }, { "docid": "312591", "title": "", "text": "\"Funds - especially index funds - are a safe way for beginning investors to get a diversified investment across a lot of the stock market. They are not the perfect investment, but they are better than the majority of mutual funds, and you do not spend a lot of money in fees. Compared to the alternative - buying individual stocks based on what a friend tells you or buying a \"\"hot\"\" mutual fund - it's a great choice for a lot of people. If you are willing to do some study, you can do better - quite a bit better - with common stocks. As an individual investor, you have some structural advantages; you can take significant (to you) positions in small-cap companies, while this is not practical for large institutional investors or mutual fund managers. However, you can also lose a lot of money quickly in individual stocks. It pays to go slow and to your homework, however, and make sure that you are investing, not speculating. I like fool.com as a good place to start, and subscribe to a couple of their newsletters. I will note that investing is not for the faint of heart; to do well, you may need to do the opposite of what everybody else is doing; buying when the market is down and selling when the market is high. A few people mentioned the efficient market hypothesis. There is ample evidence that the market is not efficient; the existence of the .com and mortgage bubbles makes it pretty obvious that the market is often not rationally valued, and a couple of hedge funds profited in the billions from this.\"" }, { "docid": "404800", "title": "", "text": "First, check out some of the answers on this question: Oversimplify it for me: the correct order of investing When you have determined that you are ready to invest for retirement, there are two things you need to consider: the investment and the account. These are separate items. The investment is what makes your money grow. The type of account provides tax advantages (and restrictions). Generally, these can be considered separately; for the most part, you can do any type of investment in any account. Briefly, here is an overview of some of the main options: In your situation, the Roth IRA is what I would recommend. This grows tax free, and if you need the funds for some reason, you can get out what you put in without penalty. You can invest up to $5500 in your Roth IRA each year. In addition to the above reasons, which are true for anybody, a Roth IRA would be especially beneficial for you for three reasons: For someone that is closer in age to retirement and in a higher tax bracket now, a Roth IRA is less attractive than it is for you. Inside your Roth IRA, there are lots of choices. 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. There are lots of different types of stock mutual funds with different strategies and expenses associated with them. Managed funds actively buy and sell different stocks inside them, but have high expenses to pay the managers. Index funds buy and hold a list of stocks, and have very low expenses. The conventional wisdom is that, in general, index funds perform better than managed funds when you take the expenses into account. I hope this overview and these recommendations were helpful. If you have any specific questions about any of these types of accounts or investments, feel free to ask another question." }, { "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": "390480", "title": "", "text": "So, if it was a personal account, and not an investment in Refco, you should have been insured by the SIPC for $500,000 for your securities, and $100,000 or more for cash. If you had all your money invested in Refco, you weren't diversified, which is one of the first rules of investment. It's not fun to learn this the hard way, I know from experience, but you should never invest more in any one stock than you can afford to lose. Learn from your mistakes rather than blame the big guys vs little guys." }, { "docid": "477646", "title": "", "text": "\"Diversification is spreading your investments around so that one point of risk doesn't sink your whole portfolio. The effect of having a diversified portfolio is that you've always got something that's going up (though, the corollary is that you've also always got something going down... winning overall comes by picking investments worth investing in (not to state the obvious or anything :-) )) It's worth looking at the different types of risk you can mitigate with diversification: Company risk This is the risk that the company you bought actually sucks. For instance, you thought gold was going to go up, and so you bought a gold miner. Say there are only two -- ABC and XYZ. You buy XYZ. Then the CEO reveals their gold mine is played out, and the stock goes splat. You're wiped out. But gold does go up, and ABC does gangbusters, especially now they've got no competition. If you'd bought both XYZ and ABC, you would have diversified your company risk, and you would have been much better off. Say you invested $10K, $5K in each. XYZ goes to zero, and you lose that $5K. ABC goes up 120%, and is now worth $11K. So despite XYZ bankrupting, you're up 10% on your overall position. Sector risk You can categorize stocks by what \"\"sector\"\" they're in. We've already talked about one: gold miners. But there are many more, like utilities, bio-tech, transportation, banks, etc. Stocks in a sector will tend to move together, so you can be right about the company, but if the sector is out of favor, it's going to have a hard time going up. Lets extend the above example. What if you were wrong about gold going up? Then XYZ would still be bankrupt, and ABC would be making less money so they went down as well; say, 20%. At that point, you've only got $4K left. But say that besides gold, you also thought that banks were cheap. So, you split your investment between the gold miners and a couple of banks -- lets call them LMN and OP -- for $2500 each in XYZ, ABC, LMN, and OP. Say you were wrong about gold, but right about banks; LMN goes up 15%, and OP goes up 40%. At that point, your portfolio looks like this: XYZ start $2500 -100% end $0 ABC start $2500 +120% end $5500 LMN start $2500 +15% end $2875 OP start $2500 +40% end $3500 For a portfolio total of: $11,875, or a total gain of 18.75%. See how that works? Region/Country/Currency risk So, now what if everything's been going up in the USA, and everything seems so overpriced? Well, odds are, some area of the world is not over-bought. Like Brazil or England. So, you can buy some Brazilian or English companies, and diversify away from the USA. That way, if the market tanks here, those foreign companies aren't caught in it, and could still go up. This is the same idea as the sector risk, except it's location based, instead of business type based. There is an additional twist to this -- currencies. The Brits use the pound, and the Brazilians use the real. Most small investors don't think about this much, but the value of currencies, including our dollar, fluctuates. If the dollar has been strong, and the pound weak (as it has been, lately), then what happens if that changes? Say you own a British bank, and the dollar weakens and the pound strengthens. Even if that bank doesn't move at all, you would still make a gain. Example: You buy British bank BBB for 40 pounds a share, when each pound costs $1.20. Say after a while, BBB is still 40 pounds/share, but the dollar weakened and the pound strengthened, such that each pound is now worth $1.50. You could sell BBB, and because of the currency exchange once you've got it converted back to dollars you'd have a 25% gain. Market cap risk Sometimes big companies do well, sometimes it's small companies. The small caps are riskier but higher returning. When you think about it, small and mid cap stocks have much more \"\"room to run\"\" than large caps do. It's much easier to double a company worth $1 billion than it is to double a company worth $100 billion. Investment types Stocks aren't the only thing you can invest in. There's also bonds, convertible bonds, CDs, preferred stocks, options and futures. It can get pretty complicated, especially the last two. But each of these investment behaves differently; and again the idea is to have something going up all the time. The classical mix is stocks and bonds. The idea here is that when times are good, the stocks go up; when times are bad, the bonds go up (because they're safer, so more people want them), but mostly they're there to providing steady income and help keep your portfolio from cratering along with the stocks. Currently, this may not work out so well; stocks and bonds have been moving in sync for several years, and with interest rates so low they don't provide much income. So what does this mean to you? I'm going make some assumptions here based on your post. You said single index, self-managed, and don't lower overall risk (and return). I'm going to assume you're a small investor, young, you invest in ETFs, and the single index is the S&P 500 index ETF -- SPY. S&P 500 is, roughly, the 500 biggest companies in the USA. Further, it's weighted -- how much of each stock is in the index -- such that the bigger the company is, the bigger a percentage of the index it is. If slickcharts is right, the top 5 companies combined are already 11% of the index! (Apple, Microsoft, Exxon, Amazon, and Johnson & Johnson). The smallest, News Corp, is a measly 0.008% of the index. In other words, if all you're invested in is SPY, you're invested in a handfull of giant american companies, and a little bit of other stuff besides. To diversify: Company risk and sector risk aren't really relevant to you, since you want broad market ETFs; they've already got that covered. The first thing I would do is add some smaller companies -- get some ETFs for mid cap, and small cap value (not small cap growth; it sucks for structural reasons). Examples are IWR for mid-cap and VBR for small-cap value. After you've done that, and are comfortable with what you have, it may be time to branch out internationally. You can get ETFs for regions (such as the EU - check out IEV), or countries (like Japan - see EWJ). But you'd probably want to start with one that's \"\"all major countries that aren't the USA\"\" - check out EFA. In any case, don't go too crazy with it. As index investing goes, the S&P 500 is not a bad way to go. Feed in anything else a little bit at a time, and take the time to really understand what it is you're investing in. So for example, using the ETFs I mentioned, add in 10% each IWR and VBR. Then after you're comfortable, maybe add 10% EFA, and raise IWR to 20%. What the ultimate percentages are, of course, is something you have to decide for yourself. Or, you could just chuck it all and buy a single Target Date Retirement fund from, say, Vanguard or T. Rowe Price and just not worry about it.\"" } ]