Datasets:

---

nthakur

/

bge-retrieval-data-finance-50K

like 0

[ { "docid": "8e31f9a452a967f889442863ca55440f", "text": "From http://financial-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Business+Fundamentals The facts that affect a company's underlying value. Examples of business fundamentals include debt, cash flow, supply of and demand for the company's products, and so forth. For instance, if a company does not have a sufficient supply of products, it will fail. Likewise, demand for the product must remain at a certain level in order for it to be successful. Strong business fundamentals are considered essential for long-term success and stability. See also: Value Investing, Fundamental Analysis. For a stock the basic fundamentals are the second column of numbers you see on the google finance summary page, P/E ratio, div/yeild, EPS, shares, beta. For the company itself it's generally the stuff on the 'financials' link (e.g. things in the quarterly and annual report, debt, liabilities, assets, earnings, profit etc.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "ed8ac5cafaa4a0d9cf5ad7b74ff04938", "text": "\"As other people have posted starting with \"\"fictional money\"\" is the best way to test a strategy, learn about the platform you are using, etc. That being said I would about how Fundamental Analysis works . Fundamental Analysis is the very basis of learning about an assets true value is priced. However in my humble opinion, I personally just stick with Index funds. In layman's terms Index Funds are essentially computer programs that buy or sell the underlying assets based on the Index they are associated with in the portion of the underlying index. Therefore you will usually be doing as good or as bad as the market. I personally have the background, education, and skillsets to build very complex models to do fundamental analysis but even I invest primarily in index funds because a well made and well researched stock model could take 8 hours or more and Modern Portfolio Theory would suggest that most investors will inevitably have a regression to the mean and have gains equal to the market rate or return over time. Which is what an index fund already does but without the hours of work and transaction cost.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c273003dc6bb4bc0fda17ca3b38d53b0", "text": "\"Your comment is more related to economics rather than finance. You're right that with conventional, everyday goods that \"\"value\"\" is an entirely subjective thing. Economists formalize this idea with the notion that people's preferences determine market prices. In finance, though, \"\"fundamental value\"\" relates to the value of the cash-flows produced by a financial asset. In Marxian terms, we're talking about exchange value - what can I get if I take this bond/stock and sell it. The value I get should be equivalent to the monetary value of the cashflows produced by that asset over time, discounting for uncertainty, etc. So, \"\"fundamental value\"\" is a bit more objective in finance since these things produce something quasi-objective - cash.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "56815446ee85684b1e933f6502565d5f", "text": "Triple Bottom Line places a special focus on preserving a wide technical skill set, while retaining an exceptional level of technical expertise, which enables the company to fulfill its mission. Triple Bottom Line offers our clients a broad spectrum of mobile application development services. We have team of dedicated developers specializing in Android , iPhone, Symbian, iPad, tablets, Blackberry, JQuery, Titanium, C+, Javascript, html5, Facebook Apps, Twitter Apps, Palm, Android TV apps, Apple's iTV, and Web design and development. We can also put your app in the Barnes and Nobles' Nook, Amazon's and other bookstore's Kindle, AT&T's U-verse TV with our approved developer accounts. We are specialists in various API and SDK integration including AT&T, Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, Paypal, among many more. Our services create affordable development for corporate clients and development firms. We provide solutions at an affordable price with superior quality. Contact us for a quote to see how affordable it will be to complete your mobile application needs with alacrity. Visit our website @ http://tbldevelopmentfirm.com/", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4e0be7ab0b5c4a8ad8dee1636aa05953", "text": "\"Synergy is when a relationship makes its members stronger. \"\"Relationships\"\" doesn't cut it. Results and [ROI](http://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/returnoninvestment.asp) are very different. If a subordinate brings an insignificant problem to their manager, \"\"be realistic\"\" doesn't have quite the kick that \"\"deal with it\"\" does, IMO, but I'll give it to you. I'm not sure what you're getting at with \"\"Expectations? Goals?\"\", but managing expectations is conveyed in neither. Your terms do not suffice, and your lack of understanding leads me to believe that you're either really junior or not in business at all.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a3d0faea96982b5a5ffaa1971f1df44c", "text": "No. The information you are describing is technical data about a stock's market price and trading volume, only. There is nothing implied in that data about a company's financial fundamentals (earnings/profitability, outstanding shares, market capitalization, dividends, balance sheet assets and liabilities, etc.) All you can infer is positive or negative momentum in the trading of the stock. If you want to understand if a company is performing well, then you need fundamental data about the company such as you would get from a company's annual and quarterly reports.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a39b37febb386d8d25976b32ed6e7097", "text": "all of these examples are great if you actually believe in fundamentals, but who believes in fundamentals alone any more? Stock prices are driven by earnings, news, and public perception. For instance, a pharma company named Eyetech has their new macular degeneration drug approved by the FDA, and yet their stock price plummeted. Typically when a small pharma company gets a drug approved, it's off to the races. But, Genetech came out said their macular degeneration drug was going to be far more effective, and that they were well on track for approval.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "68ad2d6cc4afb29c1b2f1b4a8f0d38f1", "text": "All you have to do is ask Warren Buffet that question and you'll have your answer! (grin) He is the very definition of someone who relies on the fundamentals as a major part of his investment decisions. Investors who rely on analysis of fundamentals tend to be more long-term strategic planners than most other investors, who seem more focused on momentum-based thinking. There are some industries which have historically low P/E ratios, such as utilities, but I don't think that implies poor growth prospects. How often does a utility go out of business? I think oftentimes if you really look into the numbers, there are companies reporting higher earnings and earnings growth, but is that top-line growth, or is it the result of cost-cutting and other measures which artificially imply a healthy and growing company? A healthy company is one which shows year-over-year organic growth in revenues and earnings from sales, not one which has to continually make new acquisitions or use accounting tricks to dress up the bottom line. Is it possible to do well by investing in companies with solid fundamentals? Absolutely. You may not realize the same rate of short-term returns as others who use momentum-based trading strategies, but over the long haul I'm willing to bet you'll see a better overall average return than they do.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "20f359098fd69ea33661b6f8f5533514", "text": "Google Portfolio does the job: https://www.google.com/finance/portfolio You can add transaction data, view fundamentals and much more.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f0526e7431f71287e6672e599e85d48e", "text": "\"Is english not your first language? I'm not trying to be rude i just want to understand if the difficulty in communicating with you comes from a language barrier or something else. Finance and accounting knowledge are things people go to university for years for, just to learn the basics to get in the door. What you're asking requires years of experience and earned expertise. The expectation that you can just post here with some questions and suddenly have enough of a grasp to become a decision maker with respect to these situations is borderline offensive to professionals like myself. Either you need this knowledge for a practical application, or an academic pursuit. It seems to be the latter given your previous message. There are textbooks dedicated to what you're asking about, if you are really serious about learning then go pick them up and put in the hours necessary just like anyone else. Otherwise stop wasting peoples time on here. If you have one or two small questions to help clarify something you've been self studying that's fine, but honestly coming on here and asking \"\"how can a company issue bonds and what are bonds is it like a mortgage\"\" is absolutely a waste of time and reeks of laziness on your part.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "444b5c847964ff77552b194814e3ac68", "text": "\"Spoken like a true non-business person. I'm an engineer that now has an MBA. It's not \"\"fluff\"\", far from it. In fact, I'm doing more quantitative work now than I did as an engineer. I use MATLAB and Excel more than I ever did before. And I'm in marketing, one of the less quantitative MBA jobs.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "374e6710563e24b0d8106fb204e53dd2", "text": "Not sure why people are suggesting CFP or CFA to someone who hasn't graduated with a BS yet. With that said, CFA had a claritas (fundamentals course) with like 20-20 page chapters going over basic finance and investment info. Pretty sure you can still get those pdfs for free. Investopedia is also great for general concepts for banking and investments. CFA is very expensive and I wouldn't touch it until you've taken general business classes and really built up your foundation.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ba5bf7b67849af2a301c29a925ef0c59", "text": "The technical skills (excel, matlab, econometrics) others posted are absolutely essential, but I have seen a ton of world class number crunchers who could not put anything in context. My advice: - Read any annual report for any company you find somewhat interesting, aim for reading 2 or 3 a week. This is the best way to learn real world macro economics and get a very strong grasp on financial accounting - Practice writing about what you learn.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6f223dd9cf545da0fdadcbc3847f769e", "text": "Basically you'd take all the companies in a given universe (like the S&P 500 or the Russell 3000) and instead of weighting them by market cap as they are currently done, you would weight by an alternative measure. Right now, if you're invested in an index that is market cap weighted, you're effectively momentum chasing. If a stock runs up, you're going to have a higher weight in your portfolio because of it (but only after the increase). An alternative that OppenheimerFunds has come up with is using revenue-weighting. That way you're using company fundamentals and only when the fundamentals are improving do you increase the weight in your portfolio. I haven't yet seen any research that explores weighting by other fundamentals. I would think that revenues aren't perfect either and that you might want to weight by Net Income. Or to go several steps further, by year over year Free Cash Flow growth. It could be a seminal paper if you are the one who empirically identifies a better weighting methodology and then have everyone else fight over the theoretical underpinnings. This is effectively what goes into Smart Beta investing: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/smart-beta.asp", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b2e056bfcd6c9499ce4401c581de7df5", "text": "\"Definition: Fundamental analysis involves analyzing financial statements and health, management and competitive advantages, and competitors and markets. Books are a great way to learn fundamental analysis but can be time consuming for something that really isn't very difficult. So the internet might be a better way to get started. When using fundamental analysis all you are doing is trying to figure out how much a company is worth. The vocabulary and huge range of acronyms can be intimidating but really its a fairly simple task. You can use (investopedia) for definitions and simple examples when you do not fully understand something. IE: (PEG) You can search for definitions using the search bar on the top right (google also is a good source to look for additional definitions). I recommend starting out by doing an independent analysis on a well known name such as Proctor & Gamble or Mcdonald's. Then you can compare your analysis to a professionals and see how they stack up. Books and Resources: Getting Started in Fundamental Analysis Fundamental Analysis For Dummies Fundamental analysis Wiki What Is Fundamental Analysis? - Video tut from Investopedia Fundamental Analysis: Introduction Step by Step example of fundamental analysis - It's a pretty in depth forum post. Side Notes: Personally when I first began using fundamental analysis I found it difficult to understand why something is considered undervalued or overvalued. I couldn't figure out who was the \"\"authority\"\" on saying this. Well in short the \"\"authority\"\" basically is the market. You can say you believe XYZ is undervalued but you are only proven correct if the market agrees with you over long period of time. Some key facts you should know: Many times a stock can be \"\"broken\"\" for many reasons. The price can go far beyond what would be considered a \"\"normal valuation\"\" (this is considered a bubble, e.g. the tech bubble of 1999-2000). It can also go far below a \"\"normal valuation\"\". In most cases these types of valuations are short lived and in the end a stock should return to \"\"normal valuation\"\" or at least this is the theory behind fundamental analysis.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d97e266ba12f00578992bb56628866ea", "text": "The thing about business is, it isn't engineering, medicine, or law. What value does inventing a whole other language add? When it's a shortcut, fine, but too often these phrases sprout up because MBAs want everyone to think they know something arcane and precious, and that's when cliches are a symptom of obfuscation, something engineers, doctors, and lawyers are certainly guilty of, albeit with more justification.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "c58daa07acae659b5335af1ae1dfa254", "text": "Keep in mind a good lawyer will have the contract cover the five D's: Its really best to lay these things out ahead of time. I watched, first hand, two friends start a business. When they were broke and struggling the worked very well together. Then the money started rolling in. Despite exceeding their dreams they were constantly at each other's throats fighting and bickering over stupid stuff. In the end, because they had decent legal docs, they both were able to pull money out of the business. Had that not been worked out they would have destroyed the business so that no one would have profited.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ac5f6d63f5ddfbe95132e9cb560a5580", "text": "Get involved a lawyer and Accountant. Without it you may not be sure what you are getting. What exactly will 30% mean for me? It will mean exactly what gets written in contract. It can mean you are owner of 30% of the company. If this is structured as partnership, it would also mean you are party to 30% loss. It can mean by current valuation, you get x fixed shares. In future if the directors creates more shares, your % ownership can get diluted. Or anything else. It all depends on what is written in contract and how the contract is structured. Is there anything I should I be aware of before agreeing? Get a draft and talk to a Lawyer and Accountant, they should be able to tell you exactly what it means and you can then decide if you agree to it or not; or need this contract worded differently.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "cc91ea4c757c7222136a6d2fab185128", "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.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "83a2cd1d21f6b2b537b411e87e0e262d", "text": "As part of this acquisition 96% of the shareholders accepted an offer for their shares This means that most of the shareholder agreed for the sale. If this was less than specified percentage, the deal would not have gone through. To make it easier, there were 2 options present to shareholder, full exchange of shares of Infinera or part shares and part cash. I failed to do so as I was unwell at the time So you cannot now choose the option. There will be a default option of getting the equivalent shares in Infinera. What options are available to me now? Contact Infinera investor relations and ask them.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a9137d9de66cb03137718ed663e40f0a", "text": "Isn't this absolute bullshit? You're basically giving him 8% interest plus 30% stake in the company for nothing other than putting up the initial shareholder capital ... which he's basically treating like a loan because he wants the money back and guaranteed dividend on the stake he's buying with it. Essentially, he's hedging himself against this not being a long continuing concern. So much for trust eh? I have absolutely no idea how the VC world evaluates things so this may be normal practice for them ... but it seems like short changing which will come back to bite you if the business takes off.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e3cb4bef3b410bfdf6c5f591b47e88eb", "text": "A private company say has 100 shares with single owner Mr X, now it needs say 10,000/- to run the company, if they can get a price of say 1000 per share, then they just need to issue 10 additional shares, so now the total shares is 110 [100 older plus 10]. So now the owner's share in the company is around 91%. However if they can get a price of only Rs 200 per share, they need to create 50 more shares. So now the total shares is 150 [100 older plus 50]. So now Mr X's equity in his own company is down to 66%. While this may still be OK, if it continues and goes below 50%, there is chances that he [Original owner] will be thrown out", "title": "" }, { "docid": "da781e6cc464fae224f7616998e5d61b", "text": "Imagine that I own 10% of a company, and yesterday my portion was valued at $1 Million, therefore the company is valued at $10 Million. Today the company accepts an offer to sell 1% of the company for $500 Thousand: now my portion is worth $5 Million, and company is worth $50 Million. The latest stock price sets the value of the company. If next week the news is all bad and the new investor sells their shares to somebody else for pennies on the dollar, the value of the company will drop accordingly.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a1931fcfb31aace0fe69344184134370", "text": "\"Simply paying him back the 50K to reduce \"\"his equity\"\" back to 30% doesn't necessarily mean that he still doesn't have a higher liq pref upon a liquidation event. You don't need the legal language to know...I deal with term sheets all the time, I don't deal in the legal language, we cut the deal with the term sheet and leave the legal language to the lawyers.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "75d0ef524784e39bf4b944ea1d459050", "text": "number of shares is finite Yes it is I would assume that the repurchase numbers exceed the numbers of created shares Number of shares repurchased by company would never exceed in theory the total number of shares. It can become Zero, however its unlikely as it would run on its own and its not possible. In practise company generally repurchase a small percentage say 5% - 10% of the outstanding shares. The number of shares additional created is irrelevant. Its the total shares that is relevant. Edit: A company starts with say 100 shares, over the period it creates new shares [via various mechanisms, Rights issue, split, Additional shares, etc] say to the extent of 50. So now the company has total shares of 150. This lets say is held by 15 entities. The company can buy back say 15 shares in a year, and keep doing this, next year another 10 etc. However a company if it purchased all 150 of its own shares is unlikely as the Majority shareholders will not like this to happen and loose control. There are 2 different things, buying out of minority shareholders, typically different percentage of the shares are held by non-promoters and available for trade can range from 10% to 70% ... there are also listing norms. Quite a few stock-exchange need atleast 10% shares to be available for trade [held by non-promotors]. In case a company has a small number of shares held by non-promoters, it can buy back the shares and delist the company from the exchange.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0781346fa724fd4cdd54d85a61f25b62", "text": "I almost agree. I am not completely sure about the ownership of stock, but to have the majority ownership of any company you must own more than 50% of a company's outstanding shares. Although a board in majority, could out vote a majority shareholder in most cases depending on the company policy regarding shareholders and the general law of the country, and to how the company is managed.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c12ee0e61851a3b1e3a942a83af67044", "text": "\"I think your question might be coming from a misunderstanding of how corporate structures work - specifically, that a corporation is a legal entity (sort of like a person) that can have its own assets and debts. To make it clear, let's look at your example. We have two founders, Albert and Brian, and they start a corporation called CorpTech. When they start the company, it has no assets - just like you would if you owned nothing and had no bank account. In order to do anything, CorpTech is going to need some money. So Albert and Brian give it some. They can give it as much as they want - they can give it property if they want, too. Usually, people don't just put money into a corporation without some sort of agreement in place, though. In most cases, the agreement says something like \"\"Each member will own a fraction of the company that is in proportion to this initial investment.\"\" The way that is done varies depending on the type of corporation, but in general, if Albert ends up owning 75% and Brian ends up owning 25%, then they probably valued their contributions at 75% and 25% of the total value. These contributions don't have to be money or property, though. They could just be general \"\"know-how,\"\" or \"\"connections,\"\" or \"\"an expectation that they will do some work.\"\" The important thing is that they agree on the value of these contributions and assign ownership of the company according to that agreement. If they don't have an agreement, then the laws of the state that the company is registered in will say how the ownership is assigned. Now, what \"\"ownership\"\" means can be different depending on the context. When it comes to decision-making, you could \"\"own\"\" one percentage of the company in terms of votes, but when it comes to shares of future profits, you could own a different amount. This is why you can have voting and non-voting versions of a company's stock, for example. So this is a critical point - the ownership of a company is independent of the individual contributions to the company. The next part of your question is related to this: what happens when CorpTech sees an opportunity to make an investment? If it has enough cash on hand (because of the initial investment, or through financing, or reinvested profits), then the decision to make the investment is made according to Albert and Brian's ownership agreement, and they spend it. The money doesn't belong to them individually anymore, it belongs to CorpTech, and so CorpTech is spending it. They are just making the decision for CorpTech to spend it. This is why people say the owners are not financially liable beyond their initial investment. If the deal is bad, and they lose the money, the most they can lose is what they initially put in. On the other hand, if CorpTech doesn't have the money, then they have to figure out a way to get it. They might decide to each put in an amount in proportion to their ownership, so that their stake doesn't change. Or, Albert might agree to finance the deal 100% in exchange for a larger share of ownership. Or, he could agree to fund all of it without a larger stake, because Brian is the one who set the deal up. Or, they might take out a loan, and not need to invest any new money. Or, they might find an investor who agrees to put in the needed money in exchange for a a 51% share, in which case Albert and Brian will have to figure out how to split the remaining 49% if they agree to the deal. The details of how all of this would work depend on the structure (LLC, LLP, C-corp, S-corp, etc), but in general, the idea is that the company has assets and debts, and the owners can have voting rights, equity rights, and rights to future profits in any type of split that they want, regardless of what the companies assets and debts are, or what their initial investment was.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "00d21b3746e0c66b39ff8538ccd42fcd", "text": "\"Owning more than 50% of a company's stock normally gives you the right to elect a majority, or even all of a company's (board of) directors. Once you have your directors in place, you can tell them who to hire and fire among managers. There are some things that may stand in the way of your doing this. First, there may be a company bylaw that says that the directors can be replaced only one \"\"class\"\" at a time, with three or four \"\"classes.\"\" Then it could take you two or three years to get control of the company. Second, there may be different classes of shares with different voting rights, so if e.g. \"\"A\"\" shares controlled by the founding family gives them ten votes, and \"\"B\"\" shares owned by the other shareholders, you may have a majority of total shares and be outvoted by the \"\"A\"\" shares.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4369868410d906a8c2a6ee3fc23dc638", "text": "It depends on the business entity. If the entity is a sole proprietorship or a general partnership, the individual are considered to be the business. There are no shares, and so yes, the owner would have to take on 75% of the expenses. For example, in the event of a lawsuit, if the claimant were awarded $1,000,000, the 75% partner would be personally liable for $750,000. In the event of a corporation, there are shares, so the responsibility is on the management of the company, not the owners, to come up with money for the expenses of the business. That money can come from the business' capital, which is the money owners have put in. Basically, for a corporate entity, the owner is not responsible for 75% of expenses, for a partnership, yes, they are.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4a7cb335aa2cfc013f8504d25232875e", "text": "\"It is not clear when you mean \"\"company's directors\"\" are they also majority owners. There are several reasons for Buy; Similarly there are enough reasons for sell; Quite often the exact reasons for Buy or Sell are not known and hence blindly following that strategy is not useful. It can be one of the inputs to make a decision.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "67d7dfb2f82a21b6f3921d03126aca1a", "text": "The power of selling skills. Jonathan convinced him that at 100% it was not truly in the investors best interest because he would lose what made the company grow, him... Example at 100% equity (A buyout) the company would lose its CEO the driving force behind the product. Maybe because of this it only makes a million in sales and value. But at 35% plus 4% in sales Jonathan will continue to put his heart, soul and passion into the company and in the long term maybe the company becomes worth 10 million. And at 35% this deal is worth 3.5 million to the investor, all because he was convinced of Jonathan's tenacity. A truly beautiful display of knowing your stuff and sticking to your guns.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1bf921ce7872ac844b4b36aba18cec4d", "text": "From my memory of CFA Level 2 accounting: * If Company A buys 50% or more of company B, they must consolidate 100% of Company B on their financial statements. The % of the business they don't own is multiplied by net income every year, and the resulting number is added to minority interest on the balance sheet. * If Company A buys more than 20% but less than 50%, use the equity method of accounting. This involves creating an asset for the purchase price paid for the stake in Company B. The asset increases in value by dividends received, that's it. * If Company A buys 20% or less, the investment is held in Marketable securities or something similar on the balance, and is marked-to-market.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e0654e7730a0c6596f36a97d8f2e0cc7", "text": "You actually have a few options. First, you can do a share split and then sell an equal number of shares from both you and your wife to maintain parity. Second, you can have the company issue additional shares/convert shares and then have the company sell the appropriate percentage to the third party while the rest is distributed to you and your wife. Third, you can have the company issue a separate class of stock. For example there are companies that have voting stock and non-voting stock. Depending on your goal, you could just issue non-voting stock and sell that. Best bet is to contact a lawyer who specializes in this type of work and have them recommend a course of action. One caveat that has not been mentioned is that what/how you do this will also depend on the type of corporation that you have created.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "576f7d951a779bdf0f9e1097102fbb92", "text": "There is nothing fair / unfair in such deals. It is an art than a science. what kind of things should be considered, to work out what would be a fair percentage stake A true fair value is; take the current valuation of the company [This can be difficult if it is small and does not maintain proper records]. Divide by number of shares, that is the value of share and you should 20K worth of such shares. But then there is risk premium. You are taking a risk that an small start-up may do exceedingly well ... or it may close off. This risk premium is what is negotiated. It depends on how desperate the owner of the small company is; who all are interested in this specific deal ... if you want 30% share; someone else is ready to offer 20K for 15% of share. Or there is no one willing to lend 20K as they don't believe it will make money ... and the owner is desperate, you may even get 50%.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ecb00e05bf09c78b463c0b7c134741d3", "text": "\"It should be pretty obvious that without knowing what sort of assets the company owns, and what sort of net earnings are being generated it's impossible to say what a $20k equity investment should get you in terms of ownership percentage. With that said, you want to look at a few to several years of books, look for trends. Some things to understand that might be subtle red flags: It's extremely common for early stage investors to essentially make loans rather than strictly buying shares. In the worst case scenario creditors get to participate in liquidation proceedings before shareholders do. You may be better off investing in this business via a loan that's convertible to equity at your discretion. Single owner service companies are difficult because all of the net earnings go to the proprietor and that person maintains all of the relationships. So taking something like 5 years of net earnings as the value of the company doesn't make much sense because you (or someone else) couldn't just step in and replace the owner. Granted, you aren't contemplating taking over the business, but it negates using an X years of net earnings valuation method. When you read about valuation there is a sort of overriding assumption that no single person could topple the operation which couldn't be farther from the truth in single employee service companies. Additionally, understand that your investment in a single owner company hinges completely on one person's ability and willingness to work. It's really vital to understand the purpose of the funds. Someone will be hired? $20,000 couldn't be even six months of wages... Put things in to perspective with a pad, pen and calculator. Don't invest in the pipe dream of a friend of yours, and DEFINITELY don't hand this person the downpayment for their new house. The first rule of investing is \"\"don't lose money,\"\" this isn't emotional, this is a dollars and cents pragmatic process. Why does the business need this money? How will you be paid back? Personally, I think it would be more gratifying to put $20k in a blender and watch it blend, this is probably a horrible investment. The risk should just be left to credit card companies.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "f0656add052a98a8db4a16389833068c", "text": "Source, see if you have access to it Convertible notes are often used by angel investors who wish to fund businesses without establishing an explicit valuation of the company in which they are investing. When an investor purchases equity in a startup, the purchase price of the equity implies a company valuation. For example, if an investor purchases a 10 per cent ownership stake in a company, and pay $1m for that stake, this implies that the company is worth $10m. Some early stage investors may wish to avoid placing a value on the company in this way, because this in turn will affect the terms under which later-stage investors will invest in the company. Convertible notes are structured as loans at the time the investment is made. The outstanding balance of the loan is automatically converted to equity when a later equity investor appears, under terms that are governed by the terms set by the later-stage equity investor. An equity investor is someone who purchases equity in a company. Example:- Suppose an angel investor invests $100,000 using a convertible note. Later, an equity investor invests $1m and receives 10% of the company's shares. In the simplest possible case, the initial angel investor's convertible note would convert to 1/10th of the equity investor's claim. Depending on the exact structure of the convertible note, however, the angel investor may also receive extra shares to compensate them for the additional risk associated with being an earlier investor The worst-case scenario would be if the issuing company initially performed well, meaning that the debt would be converted into shares, and subsequently went bankrupt. The converted shares would become worthless, but the holder of the note would no longer have any recourse. Will twitter have to sell their offices and liquidate staff to close this debt? This depends on the seniority(priority) of the debt. Debt is serviced according to seniority. The higher seniority debts will be paid off first and then only the lower seniority debts be serviced. This will all be in the agreements when you enter into a transaction. When you say liquidate staff you mean sell off their assets and not sell their staff into slavery.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2ca4fe8511e65b7cb8ff2d94ddb5fe0e", "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?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7e6a5a540c60faee2f81e922e2fa4a79", "text": "There are many ways to value a business. Here is a simple method to get a ball park number on most businesses. This business is made of two parts. For the real estate: For the business: I would consider this type of small business riskier than the stock market and so you should expect a higher return. Maybe 15 or 20%? If the rental business makes $50k profit (not revenue) and that is 20% return of your investment, the business is worth $250k. If the business makes no money or if they only make money because they don't take a salary then this is a hobby and not a business. There's no business to buy here and you are just bidding on the real estate to do with what you please. The assets worth $600k and the business worth $250k would be added together for a fair sale price of $850k. Adjust for your actual numbers and you should be able to get a ball park of what you think the business is worth. If you do the math and it works out that you'll make 1-3% on your business, compare that to investing in other places. If it works out that you'll make 40% on your money that's pretty awesome too.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0dba28ff9b2908da6f4be7d5ec49557e", "text": "Let's take a step back. My fictional company 'A' is a solid, old, established company. It's in consumer staples, so people buy the products in good times and bad. It has a dividend of $1/yr. Only knowing this, you have to decide how much you would be willing to pay for one share. You might decide that $20 is fair. Why? Because that's a 5% return on your money, 1/20 = 5%, and given the current rates, you're happy for a 5% dividend. But this company doesn't give out all its earnings as a dividend. It really earns $1.50, so the P/E you are willing to pay is 20/1.5 or 13.3. Many companies offer no dividend, but of course they still might have earnings, and the P/E is one metric that used to judge whether one wishes to buy a stock. A high P/E implies the buyers think the stock will have future growth, and they are wiling to pay more today to hold it. A low P/E might be a sign the company is solid, but not growing, if such a thing is possible.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ea277e4ed379486c09e3bbc1d31fd249", "text": "Your analysis is correct. The income statement from Google states that LinkedIn made $3.4 million in 2010 - the same number you backed into by using the P/E ratio. As you point out, the company seems overvalued compared to other mature companies. There are companies, however, that posts losses and still trade on exchanges for years. How should these companies be valued? As other posters have pointed out there are many different ways to value a company. Some investors may be speculating on substantial growth. Others may be speculating on IPO hype. Amazon did not make a profit until 2003. Its stock had been around for years before that and even split many times. If you bought the stock in 1998 and still have it you would be doing quite well.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "235d9911f024b3047fa915c0789caa18", "text": "There are different ways to determine the value of a company: When an entrepreneur starts a new company himself and owns 100% of the company, the Fair Market value is unknown. He has put his own money into the company, so it has a high Investment value to him, meaning he has a lot at stake in the company. The Asset value is probably less than the Investment value, meaning if he closed the company, he would lose some of the money he invested. Now, using your example, a Venture Capitalist comes along and takes a look at the company. She believes that the company has a great future potential to make money, which means that she believes that the Intrinsic value is very high. She decides to invest $1 Million in the company for a 10% stake, and the founder agrees. The Fair Market value of the company at that moment is $10 Million. The VC believes that the Intrinsic value of the company is more than $10 Million and that she is making a good investment. The Asset value of the company just went up by $1 Million. To answer your question, the $1 Million is not the founder's to spend on a new house. It is the company's money. However, the founder owns 90% of the company. The new capital will allow the company to buy whatever assets the company needs to meet the potential that the founder and the VC see in it, and make the company grow and earn money for the two investors. A crooked founder could, theoretically, close down the company immediately and pocket 90% of the new cash, but there are certainly legal protections in the contract they signed when the investment was made that prevent him from doing that.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "98ec745c6a8e74d555e9e026298ed9a2", "text": "It is difficult to value a private company. Most of the valuations is based on how one feels the idea would translate into revenue in some future time. The VC firms take into account various factors to determine the price, but more often then not, its their hunch. Even VC don't make money on all picks, very few picks turn out to be stars, most picks lose money they have invested. Few picks just return their money. So if you feel that the idea/product/brand/people are great and would someday make good money, invest into it. Else stay away.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b731769f380d1dbc187594d1070e9701", "text": "I was thinking that the value of the stock is the value of the stock...the actual number of shares really doesn't matter, but I'm not sure. You're correct. Share price is meaningless. Google is $700 per share, Apple is $100 per share, that doesn't say anything about either company and/or whether or not one is a better investment over the other. You should not evaluate an investment decision on price of a share. Look at the books decide if the company is worth owning, then decide if it's worth owning at it's current price.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "15f7e3886208561d239ceac550001b11", "text": "\"Okay, I'm going to give you my opinion based on experience; not any technical understanding. The options - by themselves - are pretty meaningless in terms of determining their value. The business plan going forward, their growth expectations, the additional options to be authorized, the additional preferred stock offers they anticipate, even current estimated value of the company are some of the pieces of data you will be needing. I also want to say something cynical, like \"\"to hell with the stock options give me cold hard\"\" but that's just me. (My experience two-times so far has shown stock options to be worth very very little.)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "135ab65269bd06b6073c0509e2cb3856", "text": "Since you are talking about a small firm, for the long term, it would be advisable to invest your money into the expansion - growth, diversification, integration - of your business. However, if your intention is to make proper use of your earnings in the short term, a decent bank deposit would help you to increase the credit line for your business with the benefit of having a high enough liquidity. You can also look at bonds and other such low risk instruments to protect your assets.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "053fc9bcde5b00d378e822f216f521bb", "text": "Let's use an example: You buy 10 machines for 100k, and those machines produce products sold for a total of 10k/year in profit (ignoring labor/electricity/sales costs etc). If the typical investor requires a rate of return of 10% on this business, your company would be worth 100k. In investing terms, you would have a PE ratio of 10. The immediately-required return will be lower if substantially greater returns are expected in the future (expected growth), and the immediately required return will be higher if your business is expected to shrink. If at the end of the year you take your 10k and purchase another machine, your valuation will rise to 110k, because you can now produce 11k in earnings per year. If your business has issued 10,000 shares, your share price will rise from $10 to $11. Note that you did not just put cash in the bank, and that you now have a higher share price. At the end of year 2, with 11 machines, lets imagine that customer demand has fallen and you are forced to cut prices. You somehow produce only 10k in profit, instead of the anticipated 11k. Investors believe this 10k in annual profit will continue into the forseable future. The investor who requires 10% return would then only value your company at 100k, and your share price would fall back from $11 to $10. If your earnings had fallen even further to 9k, they might value you at 90k (9k/0.1=$90k). You still have the same machines, but the market has changed in a way that make those machines less valuable. If you've gone from earning 10k in year one with 10 machines to 9k in year two with 11 machines, an investor might assume you'll make even less in year three, potentially only 8k, so the value of your company might even fall to 80k or lower. Once it is assumed that your earnings will continue to shrink, an investor might value your business based on a higher required rate of return (e.g. maybe 20% instead of 10%), which would cause your share price to fall even further.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "55007fd29e85f7c0371128de9781b4b8", "text": "\"Think about the implications if the world worked as your question implies that it \"\"should\"\": A $15 share of stock would return you (at least) $15 after 3 months, plus another $15 after 6 months, plus another after 9 and 12 months. This would have returned to you $60 over the year that you owned it (plus you still own the share). Only then would the stock be worth buying? Anything less than $60 would be too little to be worth bothering about for $15? Such a thing would indeed be worth buying, but you won't find golden-egg laying stocks like that on the stock market. Why? Because other people would outbid your measly $15 in order to get this $60-a-year producing stock (in fact, they would bid many hundreds of dollars). Since other people bid more, you can't find such a deal available. (Of course, there are the points others have brought up: the earnings per share are yearly, not quarterly, unless otherwise noted. The earnings may not be sent to you at all, or only a small part, but you would gain much of their value because the company should be worth about that much more by keeping the earnings.)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "27329adb821354bfbb68c192b1454180", "text": "You could also look at your growth in online subscribers as a metric for valuing your company. A progressive increase in subscribers is one of the signs of a healthy online business, and vice versa. Your subscriber growth, site visitations, returning customer percentages and other subscriber based metrics should not be ignored when valuing your company.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6df12d93516abeff8fd5bd05200b87b4", "text": "\"Since you have no sales, I'd likely question how well could you determine the value of the company's assets in a reasonable fashion. You may be better to estimate sales and discount that back to a current valuation. For example, insurance companies could determine that if you wanted to be paid $x/month for the rest of your life, the present day value of that is $y. There are similar mechanisms for businesses but this does get tricky as the estimates have to be somewhat conservative and you have to be prepared for some other scenarios. For example, if you got the $200,000 then would you really never have to ask for more external equity financing in the future or is it quite likely that you'd want another infusion down the road? While you can mark it at $1,000,000 there will be questions about why that value that you'd have to answer and saying, \"\"Cause I like big round numbers,\"\" may not go over well. My suggestion is to consider what kind of sales will the company have over the next 5 years that you could work back to determine a current price. If you believe the company can have $5,000,000 in sales over the 5 years then it may make sense to place the current valuation of $1,000,000 on it. I wouldn't look too much into the money and time you've invested as that isn't likely to go over well with investors that just because you've put in what is worth $x, the business may or may not be worth that. The challenge is that without sales, it is quite difficult to get an idea of what is the company worth. If it makes billions, then it is worth a lot more than a company that never turns a profit. Another way to consider this is the question of what kind of economic output do you think you could do working here for the next 5 years? Could you do thousands of dollars of work, millions of dollars or just a few bucks? Consider how you want this to be seen where if you want some help look up episodes of TV shows like \"\"Dragon's Den\"\" or \"\"Shark Tank\"\" as these give valuations often as part of the pitch which is what you are doing.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "62077bd6249e2f08079161e4588f0f94", "text": "\"Will the investment bank evaluate the worth of my company more than or less than 50 crs. Assuming the salvage value of the assets of 50 crs (meaning that's what you could sell them for to someone else), that would be the minimum value of your company (less any outstanding debts). There are many ways to calculate the \"\"value\"\" of a company, but the most common one is to look at the future potential for generating cash. The underwriters will look at what your current cash flow projections are, and what they will be when you invest the proceeds from the public offering back into the company. That will then be used to determine the total value of the company, and in turn the value of the portion that you are taking public. And what will be the owner’s share in the resulting public company? That's completely up to you. You're essentially selling a part of the company in order to bring cash in, presumably to invest in assets that will generate more cash in the future. If you want to keep complete control of the company, then you'll want to sell less than 50% of the company, otherwise you can sell as much or as little as you want.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "43544cf49d9103aa148b03b6f70b5ce4", "text": "Ask your colleagues! I know that sounds obvious, but just go to where people who do your sort of business hang out (or better, find some venture capital firms and ask their portfolio companies). It's not something people would keep secret from you...", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d5d2969e3095dd87f04b0ffbbdb58be3", "text": "Check your local better business bureau. They can tell you who is in business, who's bonded, and who has had a lot of complaints levied against them for shoddy practices.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c68d940b558813b57eb63f1bf1324a2d", "text": "People to ask: Granted I live in a small town, but when the same guy's name comes up more than once that's who you should hire...", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d1f7fe158bdbb3b8634828acc9ac4633", "text": "Ask for at least 10 references. Ask for 10 because it will be harder for them to refer you to ringer references like their family or friends.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6d78f4b17c9d6c973abc5b0d6a83d9fb", "text": "I have had better experiences with accountants in smaller towns. It seems they are used to working with small businesses and their reputation is very important to them.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "da6133a494b25f496cbb955cd65ff21e", "text": "The first place to look for an accountant is the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants which has a directory of CPAs, accounting companies, and local accounting societies. I was also looking for one for my own small firm. It really helps.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6e1d042d845a3ded83660b9fd7eb6eb0", "text": "Consult your local Small Business Administration office - they may have resources that can help you find what you're looking for.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f0aed14ebdb745589147bf106ba7b8f4", "text": "Look for an accountant who brings not only expertise in number crunching, but consulting and business planning - a full package.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "12d1a8b507f62f4a0cec0bd65c453fa8", "text": "\"They are under the radar, but are very strong in Europe and Asia. Deal size will be middle market transactions in North America, a stark contrast to its accounting clients. The good: -established pipeline from accounting and consulting partners & contacts -much better work life balance than most IBs, no 100 hour weeks -widely known name brand -experience working on more than straight forward sell side deals; people underestimate the knowledge and skills you learn through being involved in turnarounds, refinancings, buy side advisory, etc. Cons: -exit opportunities are more limited -pay will be below street -partner \"\"buy in\"\" can be incredibly frustrating I will say that generally KPMG prefers CPAs (even for non-accounting positions) and requires 3-4 years of experience. But, considering you have the interview, they felt you were worth talking with.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "276388f53db8e90d4b87333a7c07e18a", "text": "Generally speaking no person or program is really going to be able to help you lower your current tax burden, most tax decisions are done well before you reach the tax time. You either qualify for the deduction/credit or your don't. Where a good accountant will really be able to help you out is in planning that will limit your future tax burden. Particularly if you run a small business or are very wealthy you will probably want to consider using an accountant. I would always avoid the large scale tax prep places like HR Block they provide the same or lower quality service for a higher price than the software. I run a small business and do my own taxes using turbo tax, but my business isn't overly complex Sole prop, no employees, couple 1099's simple expenses (nothing to amortize) etc.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c5473f78e89bb5a997d4a8fd639073f8", "text": "I'm glad keshlam and Bobby mentioned there are free tools, both from the IRS and private software companies. Also search for Volunteer Income Tax Assistance (VITA) in your area for individual help with your return. A walk-in tax clinic strength is tax preparation. CPAs and EAs provide a higher level of service. For example, they compile and review your prior year's return and your current year, although that is not relevant to your current situation. EAs and CPAs are allowed to represent you before the IRS. They can directly meet or contact the IRS and navigate audits and other requests on your behalf. Outside of tax season, an accountant can help you with tax planning and other taxable events. Some people do not hire a CPA or EA until they need representation. Establishing a relationship and familiarity with an accountant now can save time and money if you do anticipate you will need representation later. Part of what makes the tax code complicated is it can use very specific definitions of a common word. Furthermore, the specific definition of a phrase or word can change between publications. Also, the tax code uses all-encompassing definitions and provide detailed and lengthy lists that are not exhaustive; you may not find your situation listed or described in the tax code, yet you are responsible for reporting your taxable events. The best software cannot navigate you through your tax situation like an accountant. Lastly, some of the smartest people I have met are accountants and to get the most out of meeting with them you should be as familiar as possible with your position. The more familiar you are with accounting, the more advanced knowledge they can share with you. In short, you will probably need an accountant when: You need to explain yourself before the IRS (representation), you are encountering varying definitions in the tax code that have an impact on your return, or you have important economic activities that you are unsure of appropriate tax treatment.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "37d3deae559faa027f581038480369ba", "text": "Should I go see a CPA? Not unless you are filing paperwork for a corporation. A CPA (Certified Public Accountant) is a certification required to file certain paperwork for a corporation. In any other situation, you don't need a CPA and can just use a regular accountant. You could conceivably go to a tax accountant, but unless you are doing something complicated (like your own business) or are rich enough that everything is complicated, you should not need to do so.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "419c2cebfdf3fcf5bc0590e713494556", "text": "I have a CPA. They said that it isn't possible. However, I've seen on message boards that it indeed IS possible, multiple times. I'll likely reach out to another CPA. However, I am interested to hear from somebody who has done this before, so that I at least have a name or defined process for what I'm attempting to do.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "095938096f0729953b2f9a910c9744aa", "text": "Hi, are you a business lawyer and do you happen to know the answer? I tried asking someone at a Small Business Center but I think he started getting annoyed at all my questions and starting becoming curt so I stopped asking even though I still wasn't clear on all the answers yet.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c4d74a187ce9d827a308f17fa8561d36", "text": "okay, I was thinking of an investment advisor. I believe in not doing it alone too. But i don't believe in just one more person. Investing advisors, tax advisors, business and law. I don't go to an advisor bc I can't balance my monthly budget and also want to save, you know. Questions more like, highest growth sectors, diversified strategies, etc. And right, they wouldn't get fired bc their client is still happy, (even though their losing money during a record bull market). Guy must be a good sales man. I'd just want to know that my advisors performance is decent relative to the market. But again, I'm not handing over checks to people, only speaking with them. edit: Yes, the average person should worry about making their kids soccer games and shit, not necessarily the markets and what their investment is worth in 30yrs", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1bc58462d1b93a9debd7c1241a6979f9", "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?\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6006ef38d0fc100958476f3a31823b0b", "text": "This is a general rule of thumb that has worked for myself, as well as my Father, Brother and Sister. We all own separate businesses. Mine is B2B, my Father is a freelance architect, my Brother is a plumber, my Sister is a CPA. This is pretty much standard practice for what is required from a franchisee for a franchiser, as well. It may not apply to all businesses, but that can be easily determined by anyone reviewing this list, unless they're complete idiots. So, thank you, Mr. Obvious.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "eaa2180e94ca419c10d2db37381389b7", "text": "I'm not directly affiliated with the company (I work for one of the add-on partners) but I can wholeheartedly recommend Xero for both personal and business finances. Their basis is to make accounting simple and clean, without sacrificing any of the power behind having the figures there in the first place.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d7a6eff56f3a33ccc3d36c129fba03cd", "text": "\"Although they may have some similar functions, CPAs and Enrolled Agents operate in two rather different areas of the accounting \"\"space.\"\" CPAs deal with financial statements, usually of corporations. They're the people you want to go to if you are making an investment, or if you own your own business, and need statements of pretax profit and loss prepared. Although a few of them are competent in taxation, the one thing many of them are weak at is tax rules, and this is where enrolled agents come in. Enrolled agents are more concerned with personal tax liability. They can 1) calculate your income taxes, and 2) represent you in hearings with the IRS because they've taken courses with IRS agents, and are considered by them to be almost \"\"one of us.\"\" Many enrolled agents are former IRS agents, actually. But they are less involved with corporate accounting, including things that might be of interest to stock holders. That's the CPA's province.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1dc280dc659eba1a66c2474e3a5ccbfd", "text": "It depends on the person. i will take turbo tax over any mediocre or poor accountant ANY DAY. You get consistent, accurate tax preparation with the software (desktop - not the online version) I was in a housing rental partnership with my brothers and one of them insisted on using his accountant... what a mistake. I have been using turbo tax for 10+ years and have always been happy. It handles my non trivial situation with ease: I am happy with it but have to admit I don't have a good accountant to compare it to. I see no reason to go to an accountant except for planning purposes. Just for tax prep it is more than worth it and more than you will need.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "668cecf9dd78bc8eeb8ac981a1655342", "text": "Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_accounting_software, in particular the rows with a market focus of 'personal'. This is probably one of the more complete lists available, and shows if they are web-based (like Mint) or standalone (like Quicken or Microsoft Money).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "32b44a14f4784baafbf92a7751d9d834", "text": "You're correct, there's always a conflict of interest in private professions whether you're a CPA, doctor or lawyer. There's always a possibility of backroom dealings. The only true response is that governmental bodies like the SEC, IRS and otherwise affiliated private organizations like the AICPA can take away your license to practice, send you to jail, or fine you thousands of dollars and ruin your life - if you're caught. I would personally draw a line between publicly traded corporations, amoral as you said, and public accounting. A CPA firm's responsibility is to the public even though they aren't a governmental body. Accounting records are required to do business with banks and the IRS. Without public confidence in the profession, CPA firms wouldn't exist. It's truly an incentive to do a good job and continually gain confidence. They incidentally make money along the way.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b2c2a2438b925a7ca203cf52bfabeaf3", "text": "You really shouldn't be using class tracking to keep business and personal operations separate. I'm pretty sure the IRS and courts frown upon this, and you're probably risking losing any limited liability you may have. And for keeping separate parts of the business separate, like say stores in a franchise, one approach would be subaccounts. Messy, I'm sure.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "6524bc2becd518e677ad0cd882293a3d", "text": "The guarantee's value to you is whatever you have to pay to get the guarantee, assuming that you don't decide it's too expensive and look for another guarantor or another solution entirely. How much are you willing to pay for this loan, not counting interest and closing costs? That's what it's worth. See past answers about the risks of co-signing for a realistic view of how much risk your guarantor would be accepting and why they should hold out for a very substantial reimbursement for this service.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f7693c356c975e39379e08b247abf81f", "text": "The standard goal of valuing anything is to seek the fair price for that thing in the open market. Depending on what is being valued, that may or may not be an easy task. eg: to value your home, get a real estate appraiser, who will look at recent market sales in your area, and adjust for nuances of your property. To value your loan guarantee, you would need to figure out what it is actually worth to the business, which may be difficult. In a perfect world, you would be able to ask the bank to tell you the interest rate you would have to pay, if the loan was not guaranteed. This would show you the value you are providing to the business by guaranteeing it. ie: if the interest would be $100k a year unguaranteed, but is only $40k a year guaranteed, you are saving the business $60k a year. If the loan is to last 5 years, that's a total of $300k. Of course, it is likely the bank simply won't offer you an unguaranteed loan at all. This makes the value quite difficult to determine, and highlights the underlying transaction you are considering: You are taking on personal risk of loan default, to profit the business. If you truly can't find an equitable way to value the guarantee, consider whether you understand the true risk of what you are doing. If you are able to determine an appropriate value for the loan, consider whether increasing your equity is fair compensation. There are other methods of compensation available, such as having the company pay you directly, or decrease the amount of capital you need to invest for this new set of equity. In the end, what is fair is what the other shareholders agree to. If you go to the shareholders with anything less than professional 3rd party advice (and stackexchange does not count as professional), then they may be wary of accepting your 'fee', no matter how reasonable.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "19e274619afa82cd02d9aab9f56d1ebc", "text": "\"You are confining the way you and the other co-founders are paid for guaranteeing the loan to capital shares. Trying to determine payments by equity distribution is hard. It is a practice that many small companies particularly the ones in their initial stage fall into. I always advise against trying to make payments with equity, weather it is for unpaid salary or for guaranteeing a loan such as your case. Instead of thinking about a super sophisticated algorithm to distribute the new shares between the cofounders and the new investors, given a set of constraints, which will most probably fail to make the satisfactory split, you should simply view the co-founders as debt lenders for the company and the shareholders as a capital contributor. If the co-founders are treated as debt lenders, it will be much easier to determine the risk compensation for guaranteeing the loan because it is now assessed in monetary units and this compensation is equal to the risk premium you see fit \"\"taking into consideration the probability of default \"\". On the other hand, capital contributors will gain capital shares as a percentage of the total value of the company after adding SBA loan.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2c271dc160cc14046b923589c6d17ed7", "text": "You should ask the bank supplying the SBA loan about the % of ownership that is required to personally guarantee the loan. Different banks give different figures, but I believe the last time I heard about this it was 20% or more owners must personally guarantee the loan. Before you spend a lot of money on legal fees drawing up a complicated scheme of shares, ask the bank what they require. Make sure you speak with an underwriter since many service people don't know the rules.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "b5ce0e715bbecbe660d6f410a6281b97", "text": "There is a way to get a reasonable estimate of what you still owe, and then the way to get the exact value. When the loan started they should have given you amortization table that laid out each payment including the principal, interest and balance for each payment. If there are any other fees included in the payment those also should have been detailed. Determine how may payments you have maid: did you make the first payment on day one, or the start of the next month? Was the last payment the 24th, or the next one? The table will then tell you what you owe after your most recent payment. To get the exact value call the lender. The amount grows between payment due to the interest that is accumulating. They will need to know when the payment will arrive so they can give you the correct value. To calculate how much you will save do the following calculation: payment = monthly payment for principal and interest paymentsmade =Number of payments made = 24 paymentsremaining = Number of payments remaining = 60 - paymentsmade = 60-24 = 36 instantpayoff = number from loan company savings = (payment * paymentsremaining ) - instantpayoff", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e2f4400348bb1a1d6a1cb9b5ac1b47e0", "text": "\"The \"\"guaranteed minimum future value\"\" isn't really a guarantee so much as the amount they will charge you at the end of the agreement if you want to keep the car. In this sense it might better be considered a \"\"guaranteed maximum future cost\"\". If the car has fallen below that value at that point, then you can just hand back the car and you won't owe anything extra. If it turns out to be worth more, you end up in profit - though only if you either actually pay for the car, or if you roll over into a new PCP deal. So the finance company has an incentive to set it at a sensible value, otherwise they'll end up losing money. Most new cars lose a lot of value quickly initially, and then the rate of loss slows down. But given that it's lost £14k in 2 years, it seems pretty likely it'll lose much more than another £1k in the next 2 years. So it does sound like that in this case, they estimated the value badly at the start of the deal and will end up taking a loss on the deal when you hand it back at the end. It appears you also have the legal right to \"\"voluntary termination\"\" once you have paid off half the \"\"Total Amount Payable\"\". This should be documented in the PCP agreement and if you're half way into the deal then I'd expect you'll be about there. If that doesn't apply, you can try to negotiate to get out of the deal early anyway. If they look at it rationally, they should think about the value of your payments over the next two years minus the loss they will end up with at the end of those two years. But there's no guarantee they will. Disclaimer: Despite living in the UK, I hadn't heard of these contracts until I read this question, so my answer is based entirely on web searches and some inferences. The two most useful sources I found on the general subject were this one and this one.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b347516b80a7e2ce42a82256cc525709", "text": "A Loan is an loan that gives some kind of benefit as an assurance to a loaning organization. So when you put in an application for a credit, you likewise advocate that in case that you can not pay, you've some form of benefit that will cover the default sum.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "954366c292367a5d222b983be4aa261a", "text": "1. this is not the correct sub, try /r/Entrepreneurs or similar 2. Banks only care about 1 thing: collaterals with personal guarantee from the owners/shareholders of the business. Nothing else matters, don't waste your time with a business plan. (Yes ELI: bank only give money to people who have money).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c7ef1a2fdbb1359261574b34d2c11589", "text": "A financial institution is not obligated to offer you a loan. They will only offer you a loan if they believe that they will make money off you. They use all the info available in order to determine if offering you a loan is profitable. In short, whether they offer you a loan, and the interest rate they charge for that loan, is based on a few things: How much does it cost the bank to borrow money? [aka: how much does the bank need to pay people who have savings accounts with them?]; How much does the bank need to spend in order to administer the loan? [ie: the loan officer's time, a little time for the IT guy who helps around the office, office space they are renting in order to allow the transaction to take place]; and How many people will 'default' and never be able to repay their loan? [ex: if 1 out of 100 people default on their loans, then every one of those 100 loans needs to be charged an extra 1% in order to recover the money the bank will lose on the person who defaults]. What we are mostly interested in here is #3: how likely are you to default? The bank determines that by determining your income, your assets, your current debts outstanding, your past history with payments (also called a credit score), and specifically to mortgages, how much the house is worth. If you don't have a long credit history, and because you don't have a long income history, and because you are putting <10% down on the condo [20% is often a good % to strive for, and paying less than that can often imply you will need mandatory mortgage insurance, depending on jurisdiction] the bank is a little more uncertain about your likelihood to pay. Banks don't like uncertainty, and they can deal with that uncertainty in two ways: (1) They can charge you a higher interest rate; OR (2) They can refuse you the loan. Now just because one bank refuses you a loan, doesn't mean all will - but being refused by one bank is probably a good indication that many / most institutions would refuse you, because they all use very similar analytical tools to determine your 'risk level'. If you are refused a loan, you can try again at another institution, or you can wait, save a larger down payment, and build your credit history by faithfully paying your credit card every month, paying your utilities, and making your car and rent payments on time. This will give the banks more comfort that you will have the ability to pay your mortgage every month, and a larger down payment will give them comfort that if the housing market dips, you won't owe more than the house is worth. My parting shot is this: If you are new in your career with no income history, be very careful about buying a property immediately, even if you get approved. A good rule of thumb is to only buy a property when you plan on living there for at least 5 years, or else you are likely to lose money overall, after factoring closing costs and maintenance fees. If you are refused a loan, that's probably a good sign that you aren't financially ready yet, but even if a bank approves you for a loan, you might not be ready yet either.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "64e9e40b6898d48c338c7559204146d0", "text": "\"I'm afraid the great myth of limited liability companies is that all such vehicles have instant access to credit. Limited liability on a company with few physical assets to underwrite the loan, or with insufficient revenue, will usually mean that the owners (or others) will be asked to stand surety on any credit. However, there is a particular form of \"\"credit\"\" available to businesses on terms with their clients. It is called factoring. Factoring is a financial transaction whereby a business sells its accounts receivable (i.e., invoices) to a third party (called a factor) at a discount in exchange for immediate money with which to finance continued business. Factoring differs from a bank loan in three main ways. First, the emphasis is on the value of the receivables (essentially a financial asset), not the firm’s credit worthiness. Secondly, factoring is not a loan – it is the purchase of a financial asset (the receivable). Finally, a bank loan involves two parties whereas factoring involves three. Recognise that this can be quite expensive. Most banks catering to small businesses will offer some form of factoring service, or will know of services that offer it. It isn't that different from cheque encashment services (pay-day services) where you offer a discount on future income for money now. An alternative is simply to ask his clients if they'll pay him faster if he offers a discount (since either of interest payments or factoring would reduce profitability anyway).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1b4e0eb0641fc8e6dd1a94c8b3a36a1b", "text": "\"You should be able to pay back whenever; what's the point of an arbitrary timeline? Cash flow is the life blood of any business. When banks loan money, they are expecting a steady cash flow back. If you just pay back \"\"whenever\"\" - the bank has no idea what they'll be getting back month-to-month. When they can set the terms of the loan (length, rate, payment amount), they know how much cash flow they expect to get. What does [the term of the loan] even mean and what difference in the world does it make? In addition to the predictable cash flow needs above, setting a term for the loan determines how long their money will be tied up in the loan. The longer a bank has money tied up in a loan, the more risk there is that the borrower will default, so the bank will require a greater return (interest rate) for that extra risk. What you have described is effectively a revolving line of credit. The bank let you borrow money arbitrarily, charges you a certain rate of interest, and you can pay them back at your schedule. If you pay all of the interest for that month, everything else goes to principal. If you don't pay all of the interest, that interest is added to the balance and gets interest compounded on top of it. Both are perfectly viable business models, and bank employ them both, but they meed different needs for the bank. Fixed-term loans help stabilize cash flow, and lines of credit provide convenience for customers.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "646a544547af13b516d0c897e77d1e74", "text": "On a personal Loan Yes. On a business loan, it would depend on the Bank and they would like to understand the purpose of the loan and need it to be secured. They may not even grant such kind of business loan.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d18ebd16192f0d891dec26f9c5cef108", "text": "I think in such situations a good rule of thumb may be - if you are asked to pay significant sums of money upfront before anything is done, stop and ask yourself, what would you do if they don't do what they promised? They know who you are, but usually most you know is a company name and phone number. Both can disappear in a minute and what are you left with? If they said they'd pay off the debt and issue the new loan - fine, let them do it and then you pay them. If they insist on having money upfront without delivering anything - unless it's a very big and known and established company you probably better off not doing it. Either it's a scam or in the minuscule chance they are legit you still risking too much - you're giving money and not getting anything in return.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0c41ae0b3760a3df1db01624405faaab", "text": "There's a bit of truth to that, except in reality when you ask for business loan the bank most definitely looks at the background of the owners (assuming it's a small business). You might have some luck fooling investors as a way to get some capital, but that's doubtful as well if you have a history of starting companies that later fail.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d1ccea21c553d6fdbf534fdb0d965a54", "text": "The home owner will knock 20% off the price of the house. If the house is worth $297K, then 20% is just a discount your landlord is offering. So your actual purchase price is $237K, and therefore a bank would have to lend you $237K. Since the house is worth more than the loan, you have equity. 20% to be more accurate. Another way to say is, the bank only wants to loan you 80% of the value of the item securing the loan. If you default on day one, they can sell the house to somebody else for $296K and get a 20% return on their loan. So this 20% you are worried about isn't actually money that anybody gives anybody else, it is just a concept.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "22e6a67b3772124c6afed7830c1bfb4f", "text": "\"A \"\"true\"\" 0% loan is a losing proposition for the bank, that's true. However when you look at actual \"\"0%\"\" loans they usually have some catches: There might also be late payment fees, prepayment penalties, and other clauses that make it a good deal on average to the bank. Individual borrowers might be able to get away with \"\"free money\"\", but the bank does not look to make money on each loan, they look to make money on thousands of loans overall. For a retailer (including new car sellers). the actual financing costs will be baked into the sales price. They will add, say, 10% to the sales price in exchange for an interest-free loan. They can also sell these loans to an investment bank or other entity, but they would be sold at a deep discount, so the difference will be made up in the sales price or other \"\"fees\"\". It's possible that they would just chalk it up to promotional discounts or customer acquisition costs, but it would not be a good practice on a large scale.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "532cd8a3e15d0d6829b3962d772eb0cc", "text": "Get in touch with a reliable company if you are looking for a range of small business financing solutions. Such companies offer consolidation loans to help smaller businesses take care of their previous obligations and this way manage their finances better", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c89af4372c5a95e112336d2e3e9f3f8a", "text": "\"This is an example from another field, real estate. Suppose you buy a $100,000 house with a 20 percent down payment, or $20,000, and borrow the other $80,000. In this example, your \"\"equity\"\" or \"\"market cap\"\" is $20,000. But the total value, or \"\"enterprise value\"\" of the house, is actually $100,000, counting the $80,000 mortgage. \"\"Enterprise value\"\" is what a buyer would have to pay to own the company or the house \"\"free and clear,\"\" counting the debt.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3b11f4fa7e336955f0eea0451f70dcdc", "text": "This is dumb. The sub company will lose money but the parent company will pay taxes on the income they made off of expenses to the subcompany. This doesn't systematically reduce their risk either. Banks will loan more money if the parent company is liable to pay the bills if the sub company can't. So yes, a bank may make a loan to the sub company without any liability on the parent company, but its going to be a very small loan compared to what they would've given the parent company.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "dc38b60a0e383d11c098c69517619c7f", "text": "In the equity markets, the P/E is usually somewhere around 15. The P/E can be viewed as the inverse of the rate of a perpetuity. Since the average is 15, and the E/P of that would be 6.7%, r should be 6.7% on average. If your business is growing, the growth rate can be incorporated like so: As you can see, a high g would make the price negative, in essence the seller should actually pay someone to take the business, but in reality, r is determined from the p and an estimated g. For a business of any growth rate, it's best to compare the multiple to the market, so for the average business in the market with your business's growth rate and industry, that P/E would be best applied to your company's income.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "f5a95d65477663dfcf01e2ed5e2fbee3", "text": "There is no formula for calculating a stock price based on the financials of a company. A stock price is set by the market and always has a component built into it that is based on something outside of the current valuation of a company using its financials. Essentially, the stock price of a company per share is whatever the best price it can get on the open market. If you are looking at how to evaluate if a stock is a good value at the current price, then look at some of the answers, but I wanted to answer this based on the way you phrased the question.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ce932128386e9ac1e3bdbe0c347a0ad7", "text": "If annualized rate of return is what you are looking for, using a tool would make it a lot easier. In the post I've also explained how to use the spreadsheet. Hope this helps.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2b143acbcb0db499f15b967cf333ea82", "text": "The book value is Total Assets minus Total Liabilities and so if you increase the Total Assets without changing the Total Liabilities the difference gets bigger and thus higher. Consider if a company had total assets of $4 and total liabilities of $3 so the book value is $1. Now, if the company adds $2 to the assets, then the difference would be 4+2-3=6-3=3 and last time I checked 3 is greater than 1. On definitions, here are a couple of links to clarify that side of things. From Investopedia: Equity = Assets - Liabilities From Ready Ratios: Shareholders Equity = Total Assets – Total Liabilities OR Shareholders Equity = Share Capital + Retained Earnings – Treasury Shares Depending on what the reinvestment bought, there could be several possible outcomes. If the company bought assets that appreciated in value then that would increase the equity. If the company used that money to increase sales by expanding the marketing department then the future calculations could be a bit trickier and depend on what assumptions one wants to make really. If you need an example of the latter, imagine playing a game where I get to make up the rules and change them at will. Do you think you'd win at some point? It would depend on how I want the game to go and thus isn't something that you could definitively say one way or the other.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "36546d11d900062f0daed28ba6f6186a", "text": "I was merely trying to be helpful - Conceptually, you have dump this idea that something is skewed. It isn't. Firm A sold for $500 (equity value aka purchase price to shareholders) + debt (zero) - cash (50) for 450. Enterprise value is the cash free, debt free sale price. The implied ev multiple is 4.5x on A - that is the answer. The other business sold for a higher multiple of 5x. If you would pile on more cash onto A, the purchase price would increase, but the EV wouldn't. The idea is to think hard about the difference between equity value and enterprise value when examining a transaction.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "79b730bea961def6987f5d292bed6251", "text": "Let P denote the amount of the investment, R the rate of return and I the rate of inflation. For simplicity, assume that the payment p is made annually right after the return has been earned. Thus, at the end if the year, the investment P has increased to P*(1+R) and p is returned as the annuity payment. If I = 0, the entire return can be paid out as the payment, and thus p = P*R. That is, at the end of the year, when the dust settles after the return P*R has been collected and paid out as the annuity payment, P is again available at the beginning of the next year to earn return at rate R. We have P*(1+R) - p = P If I > 0, then at the end of the year, after the dust settles, we cannot afford to have only P available as the investment for next year. Next year's payment must be p*(1+I) and so we need a larger investment since the rate of return is fixed. How much larger? Well, if the investment at the beginning of next year is P*(1+I), it will earn exactly enough additional money to pay out the increased payment for next year, and have enough left over to help towards future increases in payments. (Note that we are assuming that R > I. If R < I, a perpetuity cannot be created.) Thus, suppose that we choose p such that P*(1+R) - p = P*(1+I) Multiplying this equation by (1+I), we have [P(1+I)]*(1+R) - [p*(1+I)] = P*(1+I)^2 In words, at the start of next year, the investment is P*(1+I) and the return less the increased payout of p*(1+I) leaves an investment of P*(1+I)^2 for the following year. Each year, the payment and the amount to be invested for the following year increase by a factor of (1+I). Solving P*(1+R) - p = P*(1+I) for p, we get p = P*(R-I) as the initial perpetuity payment and the payment increases by a factor (1+I) each year. The initial investment is P and it also increases by a factor of (1+I) each year. In later years, the investment is P*(1+I)^n at the start of the year, the payment is p*(1+I)^n and the amount invested for the next year is P*(1+I)^{n+1}. This is the same result as obtained by the OP but written in terms that I can understand, that is, without the financial jargon about discount rates, gradients, PV, FV and the like.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "79761ea709f02e044c94985e3211cab4", "text": "\"The fallacy in your question is in this statement: \"\"The formulas must exist, because prices can be followed real time.\"\" What you see are snapshots of the current status of the stock, what was the last price a stock was traded at, what is the volume, is the price going up or down. People who buy and hold their stock look at the status every few days or even every few months. Day traders look at the status every second of the trading day. The math/formula comes in when people try to predict where the stock is going based on the squiggles in the line. These squiggles move based on how other people react to the squiggles. The big movements occur when big pieces of news make large movements in the price. Company X announces the release of the key product will be delayed by a year; the founder is stepping down; the government just doubled the order for a new weapon system; the insiders are selling all the shares they can. There are no formulas to determine the correct price, only formulas that try to predict where the price may go.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4de28ba19820b615cbea36347ae3584a", "text": "For the constant growth problem, I don't see why the answer would be anything other than the stock price grown for 3 years at the cost of equity determined from CAPM. Someone can correct me if the dividend is relevant. So: rs = rf + beta x (market premium) rs = 0.046 + 0.9 x (0.06) = 0.10 price now = $40.00 price after 3 years' growth = $40.00 x (1+0.10)^3 = $53.24 EDIT: https://www.quora.com/Why-are-dividend-yields-factored-into-beta two conflicting answers so you'll just have to figure it out", "title": "" }, { "docid": "37528e2711eafb0e0573772a2bf49083", "text": "The equation is the same one used for mortgage amortization. You first want to calculate the PV (present value) for a stream of $50K payments over 20 years at a10% rate. Then that value is the FV (future value) that you want to save for, and you are looking to solve the payment stream needed to create that future value. Good luck achieving the 10% return, and in knowing your mortality down to the exact year. Unless this is a homework assignment, which need not reflect real life. Edit - as indicated above, the first step is to get that value in 20 years: The image is the user-friendly entry screen for the PV calculation. It walks you though the need to enter rate as per period, therefore I enter .1/12 as the rate. The payment you desire is $50K/yr, and since it's a payment, it's a negative number. The equation in excel that results is: =PV(0.1/12,240,-50000/12,0) and the sum calculated is $431,769 Next you wish to know the payments to make to arrive at this number: In this case, you start at zero PV with a known FV calculated above, and known rate. This solves for the payment needed to get this number, $568.59 The excel equation is: =PMT(0.1/12,240,0,431769) Most people have access to excel or a public domain spreadsheet application (e.g. Openoffice). If you are often needing to perform such calculations, a business finance calculator is recommended. TI used to make a model BA-35 finance calculator, no longer in production, still on eBay, used. One more update- these equations whether in excel or a calculator are geared toward per period interest, i.e. when you state 10%, they assume a monthly 10/12%. With that said, you required a 20 year deposit period and 20 year withdrawal period. We know you wish to take out $4166.67 per month. The equation to calculate deposit required becomes - 4166.67/(1.00833333)^240= 568.59 HA! Exact same answer, far less work. To be clear, this works only because you required 240 deposits to produce 240 withdrawals in the future.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f2957071718c3125aae989498d051224", "text": "I was emailing back and forth with a manager in a different department on how real returns are being calculated, and he said that the industry standard is 1 + real returns*(1+inflation) - fees, and to not use my formula because it can double count inflation, making fees lower. However, real returns are not observable in the future, and I do not why he uses that formula. The returns were used in an Excel spreadsheet. What are your thoughts about this?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "47ae54c33da604d2225616426525aae9", "text": "EDIT: After reading one of the comments on the original question, I realized that there is a much more intuitive way to think about this. If you look at it as a standard PV calculation and hold each of the cashflows constant. Really what's happening is that because of inflation the discount rate isn't the full value of the interest rate. Really the discount rate is only the portion of the interest rate above the inflation rate. Hence in the standard perpetuity PV equation PV = A / r r becomes the interest rate less the inflation rate which gives you PV = A / (i - g). That seems like a much better way to get to the answer than all the machinations I was originally trying. Original Answer: I think I finally figured this out. The general term for this type of system in which the payments increase over time is a gradient series annuity. In this specific example since the payment is increasing by a percentage each period (not a constant rate) this would be considered a geometric gradient series. According to this link the formula for the present value of a geometric gradient series of payments is: Where P is the present value of this series of cashflows. A_1 is the initial payment for period 1 (i.e. the amount you want to withdraw adjusted for inflation). g is the gradient or growth rate of the periodic payment (in this case this is the inflation rate) i is the interest rate n is the number of payments This is almost exactly what I was looking for in my original question. The only problem is this is for a fixed amount of time (i.e. n periods). In order to figure out the formula for a perpetuity we need to find the limit of the right side of this equation as the number of periods (n) approaches infinity. Luckily in this equation n is already well isolated to a single term: (1 + g)^n/(1 + i)^-n}. And since we know that the interest rate, i, has to be greater than the inflation rate, g, the limit of that factor is 0. So after replacing that term with 0 our equation simplifies to the following: Note: I don't do this stuff for a living and honestly don't have a fantastic finance IQ. It's been a while since I've done any calculus or even this much algebra so I may have made an error in the math.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "be8cc9df94ea427b68eba92216842cbc", "text": "I find the higher estimates a bit unbelievable. A big part of my job is liability valuation and small assumption changes can have a huge impact on results. They may be right (future) dollar value wise but the proper way to think about this stuff is in present value terms. This could actually be a really interesting study - you all just gave me a great idea for a potential masters thesis :)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e91d8c0dcb863fc4b14459f62a081534", "text": "\"Complex matter that doesn't boil down to a formula. The quant aspect could be assessed by calculating WACCs under various funding scenarii and trying to minimize, but it is just one dimension of it. The quali aspects can vary widely depending on the company, ownership structure, tax environment and business needs and it really can't be covered even superficially in a reddit comment... Few examples from the top of my mind to give you a sense of it: - shareholders might be able to issue equity but want to avoid dilution, so debt is preferred in the end despite cost. Or convertible debt under the right scenario. - company has recurring funding needs and thinks that establishing a status on debt market is worth paying a premium to ensure they can \"\"tap\"\" it whenever hey need to. - adding debt is a way to leverage and enhance ROI/IRR for certain types of stakeholders (think LBOs) - etc etc etc Takes time and a lot of experience/work to be able to figure out what's best and there isn't always a clear answer. Source: pro buy side credit investor with experience and sizeable AuMs.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4cf40930621416f1a038cdfc953e9eb6", "text": "Average rates of return usually assume compounding, so your formula would be for annual compounding ,or for continuous compounding.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "30022115b2b70935cca632e08858c3db", "text": "dafuq did I just read. I think this would be better explained with an excel chart because I have no idea what you just wrote. Can you please use real numbers in a possible hypothetical case study. I'm absolutely terrible at thinking theoretically.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d938cfa19603cd76c60ccc1bc2fa74d2", "text": "I was looking for ideas on what the usual figures are in such positions. Something like market value, or other terms such as changing slab percentages in compensation. Not sure what the best practices are in this situation. Not sure what you are referring to.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "3091eda9cb4abbce57a1fd1559c2da15", "text": "This is all answered in the prospectus. The money not yet invested (available/committed to a note but not yet funded) is held in pooled trust account insured by FDIC. Money funded is delivered to the borrower. Lending Club service their notes themselves. Read also my reviews on Lending Club.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c19ae66b44737cc53fa80786107eabb5", "text": "The best description of P2P lending process I saw comes from the SEC proceedings. They are very careful about naming things that are happening in the process. Prosper got back to business after this order, but the paper describes succinctly how Prosper worked when its notes haven't yet been registered by the SEC. These materials contain a lot of responsible comments on how crowdfunding, including P2P lending, works.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "1725f7ef8a360ad6fb97628888e9c1b1", "text": "\"Here's a blog by a guy who is trying to do this: Personal Loan Portfolio And here's another one: bobharris.com Do a quick search for \"\"prosper loan\"\" or \"\"kiva\"\" on blog search.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3278e0a9c73e54e1e75295e5d1e9156a", "text": "\"There is no one solution to every project finance problem. Two models might make sense in this situation, however. In this case, you would count all the money that you give to your friend as a loan which he will pay back with interest. The interest rate and loan amounts will have to be agreed on by both of you. One one hand, the interest should be high enough to reward you in a successful outcome for the amount of risk that you take on if things don't work out. On the other, the interest rate needs to be low enough where his earnings after loan repayment justify your friend's effort, in addition to being competitive to ant rate your friend could secure from a bank. The downside to this plan is you don't directly benefit from the franchise's profits. In this model, you will record the cash that each of you invests. Since your friend is also adding \"\"sweat equity\"\" by setting up and operating the franchise, you will need to quantify the work that your friend and you invest into the franchise. Then you can determine how much each of you has invested in terms of dollars and split any franchise profits based on those proportions. The downside of this plan is that it is difficult to estimate how much time each of you invests and how much that time is worth.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4ebdef47b59f8a0bdd4e4fba0440b5b3", "text": "This is fraud and could lead to jail time. The vast majority of people cannot obtain such loans without collateral and one would have to have a healthy income and good credit to obtain that kind of loan to purchase something secured by a valuable asset, such as a home. Has this been done before? Yes, despite it being the US, you may find this article interesting. Hopefully, you see how the intent of this hypothetical situation is stealing.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ee8fccbcca3d7618962273ff5df1d43a", "text": "The model itself is fairly common for serving particular niche markets. A few other organizations which operate in similar setups: prepaid card providers such as NetSpend, GreenDot, AccountNow, etc; startups such as SmartyPig, PerkStreet, WePay, and HigherOne. Still, nobody else seems to be providing full-service online banking to mainstream customers the way we plan to. We plan to have much better security than most banks, which isn't hard given the current sorry state of online banking in the US. And having an intermediary who's looking out for your interests can be a good thing. David, my co-founder Josh lays out our launch plans and why we are invite-only in his latest post. In short, we made a decision to build our own call center rather than outsource it, and that limits how quickly we can bring people on.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "97ae846da79dfb8cf406399d59a40041", "text": "For questions 1 and 2. 1) If you are packing the loans into a CDO, they are being sold on the open market. Once it achieves a AAA rating, as most did even though they were mostly subprime, alt a, or arm, it is sold and shipped off the originator's books (While the originator of the CDO collects X% in fees) Basically how the originator makes their money is by X amount of CDOs they sell. There was no incentive to pick and choose the best borrowers to sell a loan to because how the CDOs were sold they achieved the best rating regardless of the borrowers credit risk. Due to this model, people are going to try and get as many people into the homes and sell the CDO asap. This caused questionable lending practices to result, NINJA (no income, no job, no assets) loans, manipulating borrowers income, assets, etc. Things that could be changed to help not have this occur again: a) Feds monetary policy was pretty meh during this period, due to low interest rates the banks had pretty much an endless supply of money and when all the reasonable ventures dried up they had to explore other opportunities to lend. b) Ratings agencies need an overhaul in how they receive their commission, preferably they should be being paid by the investor not the person issuing the security. This will help to eliminate the bias that results. c) Having X% (2-5) remain on the institutions books who created the CDO will help to make them responsibly lend. This is because if they are required to have it remain on their books, they will make better longer term decisions in who to lend to. I'm pretty sure all of these issues are discussed in Nouriel Roubini's book [Crisis Economics](http://www.amazon.com/Crisis-Economics-Course-Future-Finance/dp/1594202508) Another Great book already mentioned in this thread is by Michael Lewis [The Big Short](http://www.amazon.com/Big-Short-Inside-Doomsday-Machine/dp/0393338827/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1324140607&amp;sr=1-1) If your interested in the European Crisis Michael Lewis also just came out with [Boomerang](http://www.amazon.com/Boomerang-Travels-New-Third-World/dp/0393081818/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1324140665&amp;sr=1-1)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "782554e6e5ed2d43c52b0aff4635861d", "text": "Swimming clubs exist. Treat it as a start up business and it's easier to figure out. Once you know about what people are willing to pay to join you know about how much you can spend. Our family business invites tenants to use a private pool located at one of our properties. We maintain the facility and have appropriate signs posted and a balloon insurance policy specifically for the pool. In 1975 the pool cost 25,000 to install and we spend about $5000-$6000 to operate and heat it each season. The downside is that there is likely a lot less support for the idea than you think. You're going to have to limit access to it with a membership and that's going to be a pain to figure out because it will almost certainly require an employee or a very expensive electronic access control. You can't really open it up to the entire community without some sort of contract or no one has an incentive to pay. Every time a home sells in the community you either lose a customer or gain a headache if you don't have some sort of deed restriction or membership fee.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "62434a140f0cfd64e57c57b6ba1b6a0a", "text": "\"I have a friend who had went on a seminar with FortuneBuilders (the company that has Than Merrill as CEO). He told me that one of the things taught in that seminar was how to find funding for the property that you want to flip. One of the things he mentioned was that there are so-called \"\"hard money\"\" lenders who are willing to lend you the money for the property in exchange for getting their name on the property title. Last time I checked it looked like here in Florida we had at least Bridgewell Capital and Fairview Commercial Lending that were in that business. These hard money lenders get their investment back when the house is sold. So there is some underlying expectation that the house can be sold with some profit (to reimburse both the lender and you for your work). That friend of mine did tell me that he had flipped a house once but that he did not receive the funding to that from a lender but from an in-law, however it was through a similar arrangement.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dcc93d1da65ba82b809627a7cfab7adf", "text": "P2P lending is basically a debt product with (much) higher risk, I doubt that there's any regulation or government backing in it. The money lent to borrowers are not collateralized or securitized.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4b7b1db2ce222246f4d68ce6cf33d47a", "text": "To what end would you want to break the law? Why would you think it is beneficial to you in any way? The reason for these limitations is to protect people who have no financial reserves and are not sophisticated investors from making dangerous and risky investments with the little money they have to invest. You need to remember that there's no guarantee of principal with these loans and the rate of default is pretty high. From my own personal experience with Lending Club (and I've only invested in A and some B-rated loans) - rate of default is about 10%. This may be a nice exercise in microlending - but if you want to put all your savings into this, you're taking a huge risk. Risk which is completely unjustified since not only the returns are pretty low (again - from my aforementioned experience: <6% APR, you take higher rate loans - you get higher rate of defaults), but they're also taxed as ordinary gains. Why would you not, instead, invest in a more conservative bond or bond/stock mix fund which will pay you dividends that will get preferential tax treatment and appreciation would be subject to capital gains tax? No reason. And the limitation on who can invest in Lending Club is there for exactly this purpose - to weed out people like you who have no idea of what they're doing.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "685f5af46c704157e62049b3b1eace69", "text": "I don't know much about paypal or bitcoin, but I can provide a little information on BTC(Paypal I thought was just a service for moving real currency). BTC has an exchange, in which the price of a bitcoin goes up and down. You can invest in to it much like you would invest in the stock market. You can also invest in equipment to mine bitcoins, if you feel like that is worthwhile. It takes quite a bit of research and quite a bit of knowledge. If you are looking to provide loans with interest, I would look into P2P lending. Depending on where you live, you can buy portions of loans, and receive monthly payments with the similiar risk that credit card companies take on(Unsecured debt that can be cleared in bankruptcy). I've thrown a small investment into P2P lending and it has had average returns, although I don't feel like my investment strategy was optimal(took on too many high risk notes, a large portion of which defaulted). I've been doing it for about 8 months, and I've seen an APY of roughly 9%, which again I think is sub-optimal. I think with better investment strategy you could see closer to 12-15%, which could swing heavily with economic downturn. It's hard to say.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "779d5046f25234a651f2736f371e4849", "text": "For people who are good with money (presumably), Kiva.org gives your money to such people who apply for loans through social service organizations in various countries (I believe this is how it's done). The people state what they will use the money for. It can be as simple as 'buying provisions for food truck business' or 'replacing wheels on tractor.' Then they pay the money back and you (who donated x number of dollars) use that repaid money to make another loan.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "19e274619afa82cd02d9aab9f56d1ebc", "text": "\"You are confining the way you and the other co-founders are paid for guaranteeing the loan to capital shares. Trying to determine payments by equity distribution is hard. It is a practice that many small companies particularly the ones in their initial stage fall into. I always advise against trying to make payments with equity, weather it is for unpaid salary or for guaranteeing a loan such as your case. Instead of thinking about a super sophisticated algorithm to distribute the new shares between the cofounders and the new investors, given a set of constraints, which will most probably fail to make the satisfactory split, you should simply view the co-founders as debt lenders for the company and the shareholders as a capital contributor. If the co-founders are treated as debt lenders, it will be much easier to determine the risk compensation for guaranteeing the loan because it is now assessed in monetary units and this compensation is equal to the risk premium you see fit \"\"taking into consideration the probability of default \"\". On the other hand, capital contributors will gain capital shares as a percentage of the total value of the company after adding SBA loan.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "305d3ec3e1f18db076a292d195059ffe", "text": "See my post listing Trumps failures. Clearly lenders/investors/people get sucked into things all the time. P.S. Established Corps and LLC are granted credit all the time. In my example I never mentioned how old or established, or well funded any of these Corps were.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8586796e8d64cc6ebeb5ef6bc6cc0f27", "text": "Yes and no, P2P Capital Markets is similar concept but is more geared towards business loans. Community Lend used to offer this service but has stopped.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b564a2afd57d6a5281c9edc56494995e", "text": "A real life experience. A friend of mine did that with his housemates. They bought a house together as students and it worked for them. The tricky bit is to have a very good contract with your housemates as to how the venture should work. What if? Somebody can't pay, somebody can't enjoy the house (on an extended trip), somebody wants out (marriage, etc.) It worked for my friend...", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "a7393fedd61034cf30f7d3d6cf02fc80", "text": "To qualify as a woman owned business, a woman or group of women must own shares worth 51% of the business. If your investor was a woman, the entire 5% could come from her share of the company without affecting the 51% ownership requirement. Could you find a woman to add as an investor? If you each had your shares diluted 5%, She would be down to 48.45% ownership, and you would be down to 46.55% ownership. The only way for you to get back to a 51% female ownership situation would be to give a 2.55% ownership stake (from your share) to a wife, sister, mom, girlfriend, or any other woman who you think should benefit from this arrangement. This would still put you down at 44% (effectively taking the whole 5% from you) but by giving some of your share to someone else, it does require your partner to make some of the sacrifice, while still benefiting someone you care about (if you have someone you would like to give that benefit to). In summary, this is what it would look like:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dc758a7a45f6084cb7df180f7abe3a47", "text": "In addition to finding another woman investor, you have an equitable option that is not unreasonable: ask your partner to buy out 3% worth of shares from you (which then gives her 54%, allowing you to then sell 5% to an investor and have it not dilute her below 51%: .54 * .95 = .513). That keeps you whole but also keeps your woman-owned-business status.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "b618bb1f3e00f405cd448a8565847ae7", "text": "From a quick google, apparently 5% of government contracts need to go to women- or minority-owned small businesses, with another 18% going to small businesses more generally. If your company was bumped, it was b/c they were on the bubble in terms of quality/price, and inevitably the only reason were able to contract in years prior was b/c of the rules discriminating against large businesses over small businesses. The more concerning take away in all of this, is how on earth is it a struggle to hit the 5% target without any sort of affirmative action intervention. A bit of an eye-opener on the extent of systemic racism / inequality of opportunity that exists today. We really should be doing more to support minority owned businesses, and more importantly addressing the apparently inequity in opportunity in our business culture.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dc4e7c3c3438a2c44994a1d5202a3626", "text": "If the implication is that she destroyed Yahoo, I have written in this piece that she has saved Yahoo from the inevitable painful death. Search and online advertisement business is a monopolistic business dominated by google (https://goo.gl/MTEvFp). Yahoo never had a real chance in the market to survive on its own. Marissa did an excellent job at Yahoo to stabilize the business and shift it away from Jerry Yang's misguided investments and bets (https://goo.gl/ufmYsw). I am certain that Marissa will make a great CEO for Uber, and help Uber survive the current severe head-winds the company is facing.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "55b863b72fd7ac44b337eda19c5237d5", "text": "Really? That's unfortunate. I've read stories of guys that buy companies that are basically failing, restart them so to speak with a new vision, and make a kill doing it. That's something that sounds really awesome to do. Otherwise, it's basically just like playing the stock market, but in a different version it seems like.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3123e94a06d7b8ea1adf8bc34b2bbf2d", "text": "&gt; Women have to be represented in the global economy or it'll cost the world a shit ton of $ later on. Demonstrate how women are NOT represented in the global economy, and how this lack of representation will cost the world money later. &gt; There's a bunch of underbanked women around the world due to laws and Everex allows them to get microloans and/or execute deals in a micro finance fashion. Great for Everex, but I can't help but notice the practice is a bit discriminatory against men, is it not?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "32a0d87b28f8b8554b0c9302b8b5f6ff", "text": "\"No, an entrepreneur actually adds value, whereas stock ownership does not. Buying stocks is akin to gambling, except with different rules and an average positive return over time, whereas normal casino gambling always has a net negative result on average. To put it shortly: If it doesn't make a difference whether its you or John from across the corner doing the action, then its basically a speculation with \"\"investment\"\" as an alias. You're merely the purse. If you are involved in the running of the project, taking decisions, organizing, putting your time and creativity in, then you're an entrepreneur. In this case, its clear to see that different persons will have different results, so they matter as persons and not just as purses. Note that if you buy enough stock to actually have a say in the running of the company, then you're crossing the threshold there.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8ad8c31cf38ded9ae11e02d78b881164", "text": "\"Thank you for the in-depth, detailed explanation; it's refreshing to see a concise, non verbose explanation on reddit. I have a couple of questions, if that's alright. Firstly, concerning mezzanine investors. Based on my understanding from Google, these people invest after a venture has been partially financed (can I use venture like that in a financial context, or does it refer specifically to venture capital?) so they would receive a smaller return, yes? Is mezzanine investing particularly profitable? It sounds like you'd need a wide portfolio. Secondly, why is dilution so important further down the road? Is it to do with valuation? Finally, at what point would a company aim to meet an IPO? Is it case specific, or is there a general understanding of the \"\"best time\"\"? Thank you so much for answering my questions.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2b4d51623e06f6f39d4a88f52f500ac1", "text": "First of all, I've raised VC money before so I have experience in this area. The other commenter who said they'll only cause trouble is wrong, as a general statement. Some may, but that just means you've chosen your investors poorly. Choosing an investor is a very important decision and you should choose someone who you think will be able truly add value to your business, rather than just someone who is willing to write a check. Cultural alignment is important, and having a shared set of goals and timelines for the business is important. That said, no one here is going to be able to tell you how to structure your deal because it varies so much based on the business. In general I think it's a good idea to only take money when you need it and have a solid plan for how you're going to use it. Every time you take money you're diluting your ownership and reducing your long-term upside. Keep in mind that, as the other commenter said, if you take a deal now that means that you maintain 51% and then you take more money in the future, that 51% will be diluted further. That said with more investors in the mix you still are likely to be the largest shareholder, but again, that depends on how the deals are structured. My advice: seek out as much advice from as many sources as you can. And hire a good law firm to handle your financing transaction because their advice is invaluable as you negotiate terms. Finally, you should have more conditions than just retaining 51% ownership -- there are a lot of terms that get baked into these deals that have an impact on the long-term upside. Learn those terms. Do a bunch of googling and a bunch of reading. And ask for more advice. :)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5ea2751cc25feb9917db6f01e92e9384", "text": "It is just marketing and market segmentation. We could all shop at WalMart, but some people prefer wider aisles and mood music so they shop at Macys. Other people are fine shopping at Target or online. Women face no different challenges. The challenges in investing depend on who you are, where you are in life and what your goals are. I think it is fine to target a certain demographic over another, but they are just trying to make a niche. I prefer to not think about worst case scenarios, and I view all financial advisors with a healthy skepticism, regardless of gender.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "568be6cee03e6a396cb0454b1526ef50", "text": "Yes, it is possible. But why would someone take full responsibility, if you're the one enjoying the profits? You'll have to pay your administrator a lot, and probably also develop a profit sharing plan to encourage success. What you're looking, essentially is to be a passive shareholder, and not participate in any management decisions at all. Depending on your location, it will pose additional disadvantages for you (for example, in the US, that would force you to structure your business as a C-Corp, vs more advantageous S-Corp).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "671191388071e1fd39df1510bf71f357", "text": "Depends on the type of company and hes smart enough to contribute particular gender roles to the success of particular companies. It is absolutely not rocket science. It is however a blanket statement to state that women run companies make him the most money.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "281b87ce29ace56b33b832593ffd7a81", "text": "Avoiding tobacco, etc is fairly standard for a fund claiming ethical investing, though it varies. The hard one on your list is loans. You might want to check out Islamic mutual funds. Charging interest is against Sharia law. For example: http://www.saturna.com/amana/index.shtml From their about page: Our Funds favor companies with low price-to-earnings multiples, strong balance sheets, and proven businesses. They follow a value-oriented approach consistent with Islamic finance principles. Generally, these principles require that investors avoid interest and investments in businesses such as liquor, pornography, gambling, and banks. The Funds avoid bonds and other conventional fixed-income securities. So, it looks like it's got your list covered. (Not a recommendation, btw. I know nothing about Amana's performance.) Edit: A little more detail of their philosophy from Amana's growth fund page: Generally, Islamic principles require that investors share in profit and loss, that they receive no usury or interest, and that they do not invest in a business that is prohibited by Islamic principles. Some of the businesses not permitted are liquor, wine, casinos, pornography, insurance, gambling, pork processing, and interest-based banks or finance associations. The Growth Fund does not make any investments that pay interest. In accordance with Islamic principles, the Fund shall not purchase conventional bonds, debentures, or other interest-paying obligations of indebtedness. Islamic principles discourage speculation, and the Fund tends to hold investments for several years.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "791e2d34ab83db60f10da3263368f3fe", "text": "Less so today, but there was a time that women played a smaller role in the household finances, letting the husband manage the family money. Women often found themselves in a frightening situation when the husband died. Still, despite those who protest to the contrary, men and women tend to think differently, how they problem solve, how they view risk. An advisor who understands these differences and listens to the client of either sex, will better serve them.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fd094d8b9bc86136ff451df39877fe4a", "text": "There is a fundemental misunderstanding: the business and the owner are not the same entity. You said: I give the business $25,000 and take 50% of the business. No you can give the owner of the business 25K, and now he has 25K and 50% of a 50K business. That 25K sits in Mr. Smith's bank account, not Acme Widget's account. A more simple example is when you buy a car. The money goes to the car dealership, it does not get put into the car's glove box. You may be thinking of an investor in a business. He could pump $$ into the business as operating capital for a share of the business. In that case, it would be a bit unfair to get 50% of the business for a 25K. However, the owner may be interested in doing such a deal because value of the investor can add more than just $$ to the business. Having a celebrity investor might do more good for the business than the actual dollars. Another situation is that the owner might be desperate. Without a influx of cash the whole business might end. There are guidelines to business evaluation, but valuing them is not an easy thing.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4cb77f86b004873f0c5ce8338acc1916", "text": "\"&gt; she makes some very good points to the whole \"\"Startup\"\" mentality. The 'fight' here is for responsibility. Ahoyhere is challenging people to be responsible for themselves, and to 'take the blame' if they have nothing to show for it when or if their vc startup employer goes bust (or, gets wildly successful and they don't share in the success.) People don't want that. They want to tell themselves they're justified for being bitter after being screwed. They want to know that 'hard work always pays off', which is obviously false.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1d1b257f29aaef270074323d88d51d45", "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.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "c7f69a4ac2f6301ad1db8d23d13323d7", "text": "Deposit it in a business savings account. The following below show you some options you can choose from. Next you can invest it in the market i.e. shares, bonds etc. If you have a more risky side, can go for peer to peer lending. If you are feeling really lucky and want to invest in the long term, then buy a property as a buy-to-let landlord. There are loads of options, you only need to explore.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "07f0be93c1c32693e76847b6527391cf", "text": "I found some UK personal accounts offer up to 3% interest (no names here, but it is well known bank with red logo). You can take out directors loan from your company, put the cash into that personal account and earn interest. Just don't forget to return this loan before end of financial year, so this interest does not become your dividends.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "eced5a5b1949a6d5aa8cb7ff9a8b1692", "text": "What you're getting at is the same as investing with leverage. Usually this comes in the form in a margin account, which an investor uses to borrow money at a low interest rate, invest the money, and (hopefully!) beat the interest rate. is this approach unwise? That completely depends on how your investments perform and how high your loan's interest rate is. The higher your loan's interest rate, the more risky your investments will have to be in order to beat the interest rate. If you can get a return which beats the interest rates of your loan then congratulations! You have come out ahead and made a profit. If you can keep it up you should make the minimum payment on your loan to maximize the amount of capital you can invest. If not, then it would be better to just use your extra cash to pay down the loan. [are] there really are investments (aside from stocks and such) that I can try to use to my advantage? With interest rates as low as they are right now (at least in the US) you'll probably be hard-pressed to find a savings account or CD that will return a higher interest rate than your loan's. If you're nervous about the risk associated with investing in stocks and bonds (as is healthy!), then know that they come in a wide spectrum of risk. It's up to you to evaluate how much risk you're willing to take on to achieve a higher return.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1611faea12bf19b2154ee123778d95d2", "text": "\"HSBC, Hang Seng, and other HK banks had a series of special savings account offers when I lived in HK a few years ago. Some could be linked to the performance of your favorite stock or country's stock index. Interest rates were higher back then, around 6% one year. What they were effectively doing is taking the interest you would have earned and used it to place a bet on the stock or index in question. Technically, one way this can be done, for instance, is with call options and zero coupon bonds or notes. But there was nothing to strategize with once the account was set up, so the investor did not need to know how it worked behind the scenes... Looking at the deposit plus offering in particular, this one looks a little more dangerous than what I describe. See, now we are in an economy of low almost zero interest rates. So to boost the offered rate the bank is offering you an account where you guarantee the AUD/HKD rate for the bank in exchange for some extra interest. Effectively they sell AUD options (or want to cover their own AUD exposures) and you get some of that as extra interest. Problem is, if the AUD declines, then you lose money because the savings and interest will be converted to AUD at a contractual rate that you are agreeing to now when you take the deposit plus account. This risk of loss is also mentioned in the fine print. I wouldn't recommend this especially if the risks are not clear. If you read the fine print, you may determine you are better off with a multicurrency account, where you can change your HK$ into any currency you like and earn interest in that currency. None of these were \"\"leveraged\"\" forex accounts where you can bet on tiny fluctuations in currencies. Tiny being like 1% or 2% moves. Generally you should beware anything offering 50:1 or more leverage as a way to possibly lose all of your money quickly. Since you mentioned being a US citizen, you should learn about IRS form TD F 90-22.1 (which must be filed yearly if you have over $10,000 in foreign accounts) and google a little about the \"\"foreign account tax compliance act\"\", which shows a shift of the government towards more strict oversight of foreign accounts.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "21085de52a29bd061a17dba0d67f4927", "text": "\"Basically, you either borrow money, or get other people to invest in your business by buying stock or something analogous. Sometimes you can get people to \"\"park\"\" money with you. For example, many people deposit money in a bank checking account. They don't get any interest or other profit from this, they just do it because the bank is a convenient place to store their money. The bank then loans some percentage of this money out and keeps the interest. I don't doubt that people have come up with more clever ways to use other people's money. Borrowing money for an investment or business venture is risky because if you lose money, you may be unable to pay it back. On the other hand, investors expect a share of the profit, not just a fixed interest rate.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dd8e5ca4888ff871a3b76ce481bb3bd5", "text": "\"First of all, bear in mind that there's no such thing as a risk-free investment. If you keep your money in the bank, you'll struggle to get a return that keeps up with inflation. The same is true for other \"\"safe\"\" investments like government bonds. Gold and silver are essentially completely speculative investments; over the years their price tends to vary quite wildly, so unless you really understand how those markets work you should steer well clear. They're certainly not low risk. Repeatedly buying a property to sell in a couple of years time is almost certainly a bad idea; you'll end up paying substantial transaction fees each time that would wipe out a lot of the possible profit, and of course there's always the risk that prices would go down not up. Buying a property to keep - and preferably live in - might be a decent option once you have a good deposit saved up. It's very hard to say where prices will go in future, on the one hand London prices are very high by historical standards, but on the other hand supply is likely to remain severely constrained for years to come. I tend to think of a house as something that I need one of for the rest of my life, and so in one sense not owning a house to live in is a gamble that house prices and rents won't go up substantially. If you own a house, you're insulated from changes in rent etc and even if prices crash at least you still have somewhere to live. However that argument only works really well if you expect to keep living in the same area under most circumstances - house prices might crash in your area but not elsewhere.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b2df7330af4b3b2e7c527eca5d177db4", "text": "\"As to where the interest comes from: The same place it comes from in other kinds of savings accounts. The bank takes the money you deposit and invests it elsewhere, traditionally by lending it out to others (hence the concept of a \"\"savings and loan\"\" bank). They make a profit as long as the interest they give for \"\"borrowing\"\" from you, plus the cost of administering the savings accounts and loans, is less than the interest they charge for lending to others. No, they don't have to pay you interest -- but if they didn't, you'd be likely to deposit your funds at another bank which did. Their ideal goal is to pay as little as possible without losing depositors, while charging as much as possible without losing borrowers. (yeah, I know, typo corrected) Why do they get higher interest rate than they pay you? Mostly because your deposits and interest are essentially guaranteed, whereas the folks they're lending to may be late paying or default on those loans. As with any kind of investment, higher return requires more work and/or higher risk, plus (ususally) larger reserves so you can afford to ride out any losses that do occur.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4cde17aa6b9aefc3d4e12718987fbf44", "text": "\"This kind of investment is called \"\"sweat equity\"\". It is sometimes taken into account by lenders and other investors. Such investors look at the alleged value of the input labor with a very skeptical eye, but they often appreciate that the entrepreneur has \"\"skin in the game\"\". The sort of analysis described by the original poster is useful for estimating \"\"economic profit\"\" -- how much better off was the entrepreneur than if he had done something else with his time. But this sort of analysis is not applicable for tax purposes for most small businesses in the United States. It is usually not in the entrepreneur's interest to use this method of accounting for tax purposes, for three reasons: It requires setting up the business in such a way that it can pay him wages or salaries for his time. The business might not have enough cash resources to do so. Furthermore, setting up the business in this way requires legal and accounting expertise, which is expensive. If the entrepreneur does set up the business like this, the wages and salaries will be subject to tax. Wage and salary tax rates are often much higher than capital gains tax rates, especially when one considers taxes like Social Security taxes, Medicare taxes, and Business & Occupation taxes. If the entrepreneur does set up the business like this, the taxes on the wages and salaries would be due long before the hoped-for sale of the company. The sale of the company might never happen. This results in a time-value-of-money penalty, an optionality penalty, and a risk penalty.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a106c0e9ebdf39b357e017209b2c4b00", "text": "Compound interest means that the interest in each time period is calculated taking into account previously earned interest and not only the initial sum. Thus, if you had $1000 and invested it so that you'd earn 5% each year, than if you would withdraw the earnings each year you in 30 years you would earn 0.05*30*1000 = $1500, so summarily you'd have $2500, or 150% profit. However, if you left all the money to earn interest - including the interest money - then at the end of 30 years you'd have $4321 - or 330% profit. This is why compound interest is so important - the interest on the earned interest makes money grow significantly faster. On the other hand, the same happens if you owe money - the interest on the money owed is added to the initial sum and so the whole sum owed grows quicker. Compound interest is also important when calculating interest by time periods. For example, if you are told the loan accumulates 1% interest monthly, you may think it's 12% yearly. However, it is not so, since monthly interest is compounded - i.e., in February the addition not only February's 1% but also 1% on 1% from January, etc. - the real interest is 12.68% yearly. Thus, it is always useful to know how interest is compounded - both for loans and investments - daily, monthly, yearly, etc.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5625496dedd8862d5e88416d729fc2de", "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.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5cf21e874ace52095a9263cd6b1e72b3", "text": "If you are planning this as a tax avoidance scheme, well it is not. The gains will be taxable in your hands and not in the Banks hands. Banks simply don't cash out the stock at the same price, there will be quite a bit of both Lawyers and others ... so in the end you will end up paying more. The link indicates that one would pay back the loan via one's own earnings. So if you have a stock worth USD 100, you can pledge this to a Bank and get a max loan of USD 50 [there are regulations that govern the max you can get against 100]. You want to buy something worth USD 50. Option1: Sell half the stock, get USD 50, pay the captial gains tax on USD 50. Option2: Pledge the USD 100 stock to bank, get a loan of USD 50. As you have not sold anything, there is no tax. Over a period pay the USD 50 loan via your own earnings. A high valued customer may be able to get away with a very low rate of intrest and very long repayment period. The tax implication to your legal hier would be from the time the stock come to his/her hands to the time she sold. So if the price increase to 150 by the time Mark dies, and its sold at 160 later, the gain is only of USD 10. So rather than paying 30% or whatever the applicable tax rate, it would be wise to pay an interest of few percentages.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dd5dca227bea699fa74a25b5d0cdc61d", "text": "This can be best explained with an example. Bob thinks the price of a stock that Alice has is going to go down by the end of the week, so he borrows a share at $25 from Alice. The current price of the shares are $25 per share. Bob immediately sells the shares to Charlie for $25, it is fair, it is the current market price. A week goes by, and the price does fall to $20. Bob buys a share from David at $20. This is fair, it is the current market value. Then Bob gives the share back to Alice to settle what he borrowed from her, one share. Now, in reality, there is interest charged be Alice on the borrowed value, but to keep it simple, we'll say she was a friend and it was a zero interest loan. So then Bob was able to sell something he didn't own for $25 and return it spending $20 to buy it, settling his loan and making $5 in the transaction. It is the selling to Charlie and buying from David (or even Charlie later, if he decided to dump the shares), without having invested any of your own money that earns the profit.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f983c383262bb5e484be57c6f264612e", "text": "In general, the higher the return (such as interest), the higher the risk. If there were a high-return no-risk investment, enough people would buy it to drive the price up and make it a low-return no-risk investment. Interest rates are low now, but so is inflation. They generally go up and down together. So, as a low risk (almost no-risk) investment, the savings account is not at all useless. There are relatively safe investments that will get a better return, but they will have a little more risk. One common way to spread the risk is to diversify. For example, put some of your money in a savings account, some in a bond mutual fund, and some in a stock index fund. A stock index fund such as SPY has the benefit of very low overhead, in addition to spreading the risk among 500 large companies. Mutual funds with a purchase or sale fee, or with a higher management fee do NOT perform any better, on average, and should generally be avoided. If you put a little money in different places regularly, you'll be fairly safe and are likely get a better return. (If you trade back and forth frequently, trying to outguess the market, you're likely to be worse off than the savings account.)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9369686ff9624d06b4a4d5eeb8a3d237", "text": "When you pay interest on a loan used to fund a legitimate investment or business activity, that interest becomes an expense that you can deduct against related income. For example, if you borrowed $10k to buy stocks, you could deduct the interest on that $10k loan from investment gains. In your case, you are borrowing money to invest in the stock of your company. You would be able to deduct the interest expense against investment gain (like selling stock or receiving dividends), but not from any income from the business. (See this link for more information.) You do not have to pay taxes on the interest paid to your father; that is an expense, not income. However, your father has to pay taxes on that interest, because that is income for him.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "39a433a84ddadd612b78e80c78d4808f", "text": "\"The UK has Islamic banks. I don't know whether Germany has the same or not (with a quick search I can find articles stating intentions to establish one, but not the results). Even if there's none in Germany, I assume that with some difficulty you could use banks elsewhere in the EU and even non-Euro-denominated. I can't recommend a specific provider or product (never used them and probably wouldn't offer recommendations on this site anyway), but they advertise savings accounts. I've found one using a web search that offers an \"\"expected profit rate\"\" of 1.9% for a 12 month fix, which is roughly comparable with \"\"typical\"\" cash savings products in pounds sterling. Typical to me I mean, not to you ;-) Naturally you'd want to look into the risk as well. Their definition of Halal might not precisely match yours, but I'm sure you can satisfy yourself by looking into the details. I've noticed for example a statement that the bank doesn't invest your money in tobacco or alcohol, which you don't give as a requirement but I'm going to guess wouldn't object to!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8e6b3ccc88372faf54375ebaed55528a", "text": "A 15% discount is a 17.6% return. (100/85 = 1.176). For a holding period that's an average 15.5 days, a half month. It would be silly to compound this over a year as the numbers are limited. The safest way to do this is to sell the day you are permitted. In effect, you are betting, 12 times a year, that the stock won't drop 15% in 3 days. You can pull data going back decades, or as long as your company has been public, and run a spreadsheet to see how many times, if at all, the stock has seen this kind of volatility over 3 day periods. Even for volatile stocks, a 15% move is pretty large, you're likely to find your stock doing this less than once per year. It's also safest to not accumulate too many shares of your company for multiple reasons, having to do with risk spreading, diversification, etc. 2 additional points - the Brexit just caused the S&P to drop 4% over the last 3 days trading. This was a major world event, but, on average we are down 4%. One would have to be very unlucky to have their stock drop 15% over the specific 3 days we are discussing. The dollars at risk are minimal. Say you make $120K/yr. $10K/month. 15% of this is $1500 and you are buying $1765 worth of stock. The gains, on average are expected to be $265/mo. Doesn't seem like too much, but it's $3180 over a years' time. $3180 in profit for a maximum $1500 at risk at any month's cycle.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "990d7cea7a0d872a8b50cca148e7d234", "text": "\"This is a common and good game-plan to learn valuable life skills and build a supplemental income. Eventually, it could become a primary income, and your strategic risk is overall relatively low. If you are diligent and patient, you are likely to succeed, but at a rate that is so slow that the primary beneficiaries of your efforts may be your children and their children. Which is good! It is a bad gameplan for building an \"\"empire.\"\" Why? Because you are not the first person in your town with this idea. Probably not even the first person on the block. And among those people, some will be willing to take far more extravagant risks. Some will be better capitalized to begin with. Some will have institutional history with the market along with all the access and insider information that comes with it. As far as we know, you have none of that. Any market condition that yields a profit for you in this space, will yield a larger one for them. In a downturn, they will be able to absorb larger losses than you. So, if your approach is to build an empire, you need to take on a considerably riskier approach, engage with the market in a more direct and time-consuming way, and be prepared to deal with the consequences if those risks play out the wrong way.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "01aec37e09311c858b5e357f73a4b357", "text": "\"Arguably, \"\"because they can\"\". Canada's banking industry is dominated by five chartered banks who by virtue of their size, pretty much determine how banking is done in Canada. Yes, they have to abide by government regulation, but they carry enough weight to influence government and to some extent shape the regulation they have to follow. While this situation makes Canada's financial system very stable and efficient, it also permits anti-competitive behavior. There was a time (when U.S. banks were not permitted to operate across state lines) when the smallest of Canada's \"\"big 5\"\" was bigger than the biggest U.S. bank, despite our economy having always been about 1/10 the size of the U.S. That scale and their small number gives the \"\"big 5\"\" the ability to invest heavily in and collaborate on whatever they decide to be in their own interest. So, if they want to charge fees, they do.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0289022308ebf38fe78e9fa60167689b", "text": "Lending isn't profitable when interest rates are this low. Consider what's involved to offer a savings or checking account. The bank must maintain branches with tellers. The bank has to pay rent (or buy and pay property taxes and utilities). The bank has to pay salaries. The bank has to maintain cash so as to make change. And pay for insurance against robbery. All of that costs money. At 6% interest, a bank can sort of make money. Not great money, but it takes in more than it has to pay out. At 4% interest, which is about where ten year mortgage rates are in Canada, the bank doesn't make enough margin. They are better off selling the loan and closing their branches than offering free checking accounts. An additional problem is that banks tend to make money from overdraft fees. But there's been a move to limit overdraft fees, as they target the most economically vulnerable. So Canadian banks tend to charge monthly fees instead. UK banks may also start charging monthly fees if interest rates stay low and other fees get curtailed.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "afce39b90196e467c1051a1aebd1ea6b", "text": "The other answers in this thread do a fine job of explaining the economic situation that banks are in. In addition to that information, I would like to point out that it is not hard to avoid a monthly fee for Canadian bank accounts. Usually this involves keeping a minimum balance of a few thousand dollars at all times. Actual examples (as of Dec 2016) for the lowest tier chequing accounts. Includes information on the minimum balance to waive the monthly fee, and the monthly fee otherwise:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "07387f98d8f5d6003a51cc409fc5a910", "text": "You have to check your contract to be sure what is it you're paying for. Typically, you get some of the following features which can be unavailable to you in banks which don't charge a monthly fee: Arguably, these expenses could be paid by the interest rates your money earn to the bank. Notice how banks which don't charge a fee usually require you to have a minimum amount of cash in your account or a minimum monthly cash flow. When you pay for your bank's services in cash, there's no such restrictions. I'm not sure if typical banks in the UK would take away your credit card if you lose your job and don't qualify for that kind of card any more, but I do know banks who would. The choice is yours, and while it's indeed sad that you don't have this kind of choice in Canada, it's also not like you're paying solely for the privilege of letting them invest your money behind your back.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "777609ebf107f439f7d88abfd8f47406", "text": "\"In the end, all these fees hurt the average consumer, since the merchant ultimately passes cost to consumer. Savvy consumers can stay at par or get ahead, if they put in the effort. It's a pain, but I rotate between 4 cards depending on time of year and type of purchase, to optimize cash back. My cards are: 1. 5% rewards card on certain categories, rotates each quarter 2. 2% travel/dining card (fee card, but I travel a bunch so it's worth it, no foreign transaction fees) 3. 1.5% rewards card for everything else 4. Debit card (swiped as a CC) for small purchases (i.e. lunches) at credit union for \"\"enhanced\"\" high interest checking account, requiring certain # swipes/month. This alone returns to me ~$800/yr.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "18669cc27884e61802f45f91344c1972", "text": "Banks don't care that you are responsible cardholder. They care to make money. Interest rates are basically 0% by government policy and the banks charge their responsible cardholders 20% interest rates. Think about that for one second, and realize they really do not care about your ability to avoid paying interest, they only need you to 'slip up' one month during your entire lifetime to make a profit from you. It is in their interest for you to get into a spending habit, from 0% promo rates, so that eventually a frivolous purchase or life changing event causes a balance to stay on the card for over one month.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "609c715b134b85f0951fb29bdb2469e5", "text": "Most of these blogs/websites that you mention above promote banks that pay a commission and hence you never realize there are better banks out there that offer a higher rate. I went through the same exercise to find the bank that paid the best rate and realized the truth I mention above. I currently bank with Alliant Credit Union, which doesn't pay a commission or have affiliate fees. If you find a bank that pays a higher rate than ACU, let me know, I'd like to switch to that bank as well! To give an example, ACU's regular savings rate is equivalent to EverBank's 2 year CD! See what I mean when I say affiliate and commissions run the show? Disclosure: BTW, I'm a customer of this bank, not an employee. I do have a blog if you wish to read my experience with ACU.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "298bc6aaa358239ee51268053527c422", "text": "I haven't read the terms here but the question may not have a good answer. That won't stop me from trying. Call the real rate (interest rate - inflation) and you'll have what is called negative real rates. It's rare for the overnight real rate to be negative. If you check the same sources for historical data you'll find it's usually higher. This is because borrowing money is usually done to gain an economic benefit, ie. make a profit. That is no longer a consideration when borrowing money short term and is IMO a serious problem. This will cause poor investment decisions like you see in housing. Notice I said overnight rate. That is the only rate set by the BoC and the longer rates are set by the market. The central bank has some influence because a longer term is just a series of shorter terms but if you looked up the rate on long Canadian real return bonds, you'd see them with a real rate around 1%. What happens when the central bank raise or lowers rates will depend on the circumstances. The rate in India is so high because they are using it to defend the rupee. If people earn more interest they have a preference to buy that currency rather than others. However these people aren't stupid, they realize it's the real rate that matters. That's why Japan can get away with very low rates and still have demand for the currency - they have, or had, deflation. When that changed, the preference for their currency changed. So if Canada hast forex driven inflation then the BoC will have to raise rates to defend the dollar for the purpose of lowering inflation from imports. Whether it works or not is another story. Note that the Canadian dollar is very dependant on the total dollar value of net oil exports. If Canada has inflation due too an accelerating economy this implies that there are profitable opportunities so businesses and individuals will be more likely to pay a positive real rate of interest. In that scenario the demand for credit money will drive the real rate of return.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "14f6c5ee4bcdb17b63ff8518e5ff0858", "text": "Banks need to provide a free mechanism to deposit and withdrawal money. Banks are free to charge fees as long as it is well published. If you are not happy with services you can complain to Banking ombudsman.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2d792ae9e61e82e4fe8b8f717c734814", "text": "That's the same question I've been pondering. How did they handle it in Canada umpteen years ago on their test run? Obviously they're not giving out a lump sum at the beginning of the year, but what about month to month?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9ddbb2ab2f56ca83404d5538de734baa", "text": "I had an RRSP account with a managed services account at a major Cdn bank that increased its fees to $125 a year per account. Because I could not trade any of my funds living in the US, it made no sense to throw away $500 a year for nothing (two accounts for me and two accounts for my wife - regular RRSP and locked in RRSP). I was able to move all my accounts to TD discount brokerage without any issue. I did this two years ago.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2fd09b10078171bba36eadd0d1d691d9", "text": "\"Charging interest by non financial institutions is allowable. There is only one definition of illegal or criminal interest and this is regarding loan sharks. Section 347 of the Canadian Criminal Code makes it illegal to charge more than 60% annually. The biggest debate was whether or not \"\"pay day\"\" loan companies were breaking the law. The recent bill C-26 amends this section to exempt \"\"pay day\"\" loans from this definition.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ccb53ec70fd1c7e3b4addbd3a77698da", "text": "\"There are two reasons you would get a higher yield for savings accounts: either because it is not guaranteed by a national deposit insurance fund (CDIC I presume in Canada), or you have to hold it for a longer term. Money Market Accounts are insured in the U.S. and are also very liquid since you can debit from it any time. Because of this, they offer much lower rates of interest than comparable products. If you look at the savings products such as the 1.50% momentum savings account offered by ScotiaBank, you actually have to hold a $5000 balance and not make any debit from it for 90 days in order to get the extra 0.75% that would get you to 1.50%. Essentially this is roughly equivalent to offering you a 1.50% GIC with a 0.75% withdrawal penalty fee, but simply presented in more \"\"positive\"\" terms. As for the Implicity Financial Financial 1.75% offering, it looks like it is not insured by the CDIC.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "15fd5a238ccc43822493b9417a03bef2", "text": "In Canada section 347 of the Canadian Criminal Code makes it illegal to charge more than 60% annually. Since most Canadian credit card annual interest fee is below this they are within that legal limit. However this is limited only to the rate and not necessarily a cap on the absolute interest charges.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "10ecf9570eab2bcf9769c9cd4862c2c3", "text": "Banks do of course incur costs on currency transactions. But they're not as high as the fee charged to the customer. Most banks in most places lose a lot of money on operating bank accounts for customers, and make the money back by charging more than their costs for services like currency exchange. If you don't choose to pay those fees, use an online service instead. But bear in mind that if everyone does so then banks will be forced to charge higher fees for current accounts.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "188502c8878306a1a913ada819b89d34", "text": "Sorry, in the US (Bank of America). The kind of account we have has that high fee, but they also have free account options that have lower or zero balance requirements, you just have to setup direct deposit. The one we have has free checks, free safe deposit box, an English speaking customer service rep guaranteed to answer my call in something like 3 rings, and a bunch of other stuff I'll never use.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "61c5fa483ae886d1c28b6c20ada4eb32", "text": "Too much work for me. I simply pay TD $109/yr. And make more than that on getting my money to work ~~with~~ for me. If I had been smart I would have opened a credit union account when I first got here, like I had in the states.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9dc05df9fc6e20481d08de42919c5f53", "text": "Almost every company I know of charges something like 2% per month on past due accounts. They are not financial institutions, so it's probably quite legal.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "01a75da40e4796f26d06554710e135ba", "text": "\"From the way you frame the question it sounds like you more or less know the answer already. Yes - you can make a non-deductable contribution to a traditional IRA and convert it to a Roth IRA. Here is Wikipedia's explanation: Regardless of income but subject to contribution limits, contributions can be made to a Traditional IRA and then converted to a Roth IRA.[10] This allows for \"\"backdoor\"\" contributions where individuals are able to avoid the income limitations of the Roth IRA. There is no limit to the frequency with which conversions can occur, so this process can be repeated indefinitely. One major caveat to the entire \"\"backdoor\"\" Roth IRA contribution process, however, is that it only works for people who do not have any pre-tax contributed money in IRA accounts at the time of the \"\"backdoor\"\" conversion to Roth; conversions made when other IRA money exists are subject to pro-rata calculations and may lead to tax liabilities on the part of the converter. [9] Do note the caveat in the second paragraph. This article explains it more thoroughly: The IRS does not allow converters to specify which dollars are being converted as they can with shares of stock being sold; for the purposes of determining taxes on conversions the IRS considers a person’s non-Roth IRA money to be a single, co-mingled sum. Hence, if a person has any funds in any non-Roth IRA accounts, it is impossible to contribute to a Traditional IRA and then “convert that account” to a Roth IRA as suggested by various pundits and the Wikipedia piece referenced above – conversions must be performed on a pro-rata basis of all IRA money, not on specific dollars or accounts. Say you have $20k of pre-tax assets in a traditional IRA, and make a non-deductable contribution of $5k. The account is now 80% pre-tax assets and 20% post-tax assets, so if you move $5k into a Roth IRA, $4k of it would be taxed in the conversion. The traditional IRA would be left with $16k of pre-tax assets and $4k of post-tax assets.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "4c30ad0006a1e499ae485f0a559057c3", "text": "\"You can accept almost anything mutually agreeable to you and the other party as payment. That's the definition of \"\"barter\"\". If you agree to trade manufactured goods for livestock, as long as both parties agree on the terms, I'm not aware of any law that would prohibit it. I hedged with \"\"almost\"\" because of course you can't accept something that is explicitly illegal. Like you can't say you'll accept cocaine as payment. Less obviously, there are laws regulating the sale of guns, nuclear fuel, agricultural products, etc. You'd still have to pay taxes, and it can get complicated to determine the taxable value of the transaction. Sorry, but you can't avoid taxes by getting your income in something other than cash.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "614f21e70ade61361992513495a9cbf2", "text": "Of course you can accept gold as payment. Would anyone pay in gold? Would it have tax consequences on your federal taxes? These additional questions are off-topic on this site about personal finance.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "27c36d33072f1f3c03abebb2b95e40c9", "text": "\"Yes. \"\"There is, ...no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services.\"\" Taken from the US Department of the Treasury.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9b58296e546e1efce9613746b1a82bd7", "text": "Yes. But the question is do you want to have gold? If you are going to buy gold anyway, and if you can get a good conversion rate between USD:gold, then why not? If you are looking to use your earnings on things that you cannot buy using gold, then I'd recommend you take USD instead. Have fun!", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "1f82eef360c642b80cbd1041bd8dcd02", "text": "\"Gold is not an investment. Gold is a form of money. It and silver have been used as money much longer than paper. Paper money is a relatively recent invention (less than 350 years old) with a horrible track record of preserving wealth. When I exchange my paper US dollars for gold I'm exchanging one form of money for another. US dollars, or US Federal Reserve Notes to be more precise, can be printed ad nauseam by one bank that is totally private and is never audited. Keeping all of your savings in US dollars is ignoring history, it is believing the US Federal Reserve has your best interest in mind, it is hoping that somehow things will be different this time, it is believing that the US dollar will somehow magically be the first fiat currency to last a person's lifetime. TIPS may seem like a good hedge against inflation. However, the government offering TIPS is also the same government that is calculating the inflation rate used to adjust TIPS. What a great deal. If you do some research you discover that the method for calculating the consumer price index is always \"\"modified\"\" since it is always found to over estimate inflation. It is never found to under estimate inflation. Imagine that. Here is a chart showing the inflation rate as if it were calculated the same way as it was calculated in 1980. Buying any government debt is also a way to guarantee you or your children will be taxed in the future since the government will have to obtain the money from someone to pay back bonds. It's like voting for future taxes.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "99ae11da9e2344a919be8ae6153f2302", "text": "\"The reason I don't want to get into here it is because internet debates over these things turn into an absolute shit-show, instantly. In a nutshell, the (sane parts of) argument comes down to very difficult-to-prove assumptions about how perfectly fiat currency can/will be implemented. - The (sane) case for gold is that it is very difficult to get into the kind of money-printing mischief that places like Zimbabwe and Argentina have got into when your currency is based on something with a finite and slow-growing supply. It's hard to print more gold. - The (sane) case for fiat currency is that it is ridiculous to hamstring the entire economy by tying it to one arbitrary commodity with a fluctuating value and supply that does not correlate well with overall economic output. A perfectly-implemented fiat currency, printed and ordained by a perfectly omniscient, perfectly competent, and perfectly benevolent central bank (let's call it \"\"God money\"\"), is the ideal. That's pretty much axiomatic, and even sane gold-bugs would tend to allow the above, so far as it goes, including all stipulations. In fact, someone inclined to believe in divine intervention might make a case that gold is precisely that: a hard-to-forge, easy-to-detect, easy-to-handle metal placed on earth by God in quantities just right to serve as currency. The problem is that a really *bad* fiat currency is absolutely terrible: leads to nightmare-scenarios; people starving on one side of a fence while tons of crops are being burned on the other side because of runaway price-discrepancies, stuff like that. Again, even (sane) Keynesians will allow as much. The problem is that the crazies, ideologues, and single-issue zealots come out of the woodwork when you start getting into this stuff, and tend to dominate the conversation (if \"\"conversation\"\" is a fair word to use). In a sense, the \"\"sane\"\" spectrum of debate boils down to an almost ideological divide: - Whether you believe that a sort of permanent, technocratic, central-bank/currency-issuer is possible/plausible. Because if it *is* achievable, it is almost certainly better than just tying the whole economy to the price of a single commodity. If it is *not* achievable, then it is almost certainly better to let the markets adjust and correct, however imperfectly, than to tie the whole economy to the whims and wishes of incompetent and politically-motivated money-printers. (I hope that makes sense, and that it is a fair representation of the conundrum). The problem with making an argument is that you've got a hodge-podge of technical (and sometimes fairly complicated) nitty-gritty, plus a certain amount of starting-assumption/worldview/ideological stuff, all smooshed together, and almost all of it is very hard/impossible to \"\"prove\"\" via evidential scientific testing. Both the technical and historical stuff have strong conflicting indicators, and it's obviously not possible to, say, set up two identical societies and let them run for a thousand years, controlling for everything but monetary policy, and see what happens. Macro-economics is a very imperfect science. It has certainly given the world some very useful and valuable insights and axioms, but the testing methods are extremely indirect and heavily subject to interpretation: you really have only the historical record to draw on, and it is almost impossible to find examples that control for whatever variable is in question. Macro, ideally, *tries* really hard to be science, but you're always kind of picking from bad examples when testing a hypothesis, trying to line up vaguely similar historical periods to isolate for some common factor. It's kind of like geology or theoretical physics, except with much smaller and messier data-sets. Ten thousand years from now, it will be much easier to look at the historical data and isolate for particular variables over multiple hundred-year spans across a variety of cultural, political, and socio-economic backgrounds. For now, the peanut-gallery is chock full of questions that the experts cannot answer, and the record is full of exceptions to every rule, and a lot of it frankly boils down to worldview and ideology (with a healthy dollop of \"\"I'm smarter than you\"\" to finish the sauce). Since I personally prefer technical questions to politics, I will leave it to others to formulate and debate those things.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "50b52264b9409f57b1b597876e96528a", "text": "Technically, you could improve your odds in this hypothetical pre-apocolyptic economy by diversifying your digital and tangible precious-metal-commodity portfolio by going in with gold, silver, platinum, palladium, and others. That being said I'm not sure if one can access tangible stores of all these metals...", "title": "" }, { "docid": "34f75daeea825fb48d7bdfcbe8d81d1d", "text": "I thought the same. Money as a transferable item is against future items, and debt is a transferable item against future money, which is also seen as a much farther into the future item. Money = tomorrows item. Debt = tomorrows money = (tomorrows item)(time +1); or longer if we agree to pay it off over 20 years Interestingly I have seen a writeup on why gold is the material of choice. If someone can find this it would be great but I will try write from memory, Google is not helping. The story is something like this: Essentially when trading a material for jewellery we had difficulty finding what material to use. Obviously it must be something hardy and tough, but not common. Metals are the obvious choice, although crystalline structures like gems and opals are useful. The reason for metals are that they can easily and repeatably be shaped into a form that will be aesthetically pleasing and hold its shape. But which specific metal is to be chosen; obviously it must be chemically stable, so potassium magnesium and those metal like elements are removed from contention. It must be rare so items like lead, iron and copper are too common, although not worthless. The most stable, malleable and rare materials are Platinum, Silver and Gold. Platinum requires too high a melting point to be suitable; the requirements to smelt and handle it as a material are too high. Not to deny the value but the common use it prohibitive. Silver is easier to handle, but tends to tarnish. Continuous upkeep is required and this becomes a detraction of its full value. Finally Gold, rare, low melting point, resistant to tarnishing and oxidation, rare, malleable and pretty. A sweet spot of all materials.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "341db8f4c2c2686e74b451a59f893298", "text": "Dream on. You are parroting government apologists. The only real complaint against gold is that it forces governments to limit their expenditures to what they can collect in revenue. All the critics of gold are in favor of big government and deficit spending. Gold is money. It is the only real money. And within five years there will be a de facto gold standard in international commerce.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "25a38b50c7fa018f6d9168ae1325fc2f", "text": "\"Since you are going to be experiencing a liquidity crisis that even owning physical gold wouldn't solve, may I suggest bitcoins? You will still be liquid and people anywhere will be able to trade it. This is different from precious metals, whereas even if you \"\"invested\"\" in gold you would waste considerable resources on storage, security and actually making it divisible for trade. You would be illiquid. Do note that the bitcoin currency is currently more volatile than a Greek government bond.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9c819a504e498ac7204871e2015cb07e", "text": "You stumbled on your second paragraph when you said gold is debt. It's not. It is an asset you can hold in your hand that has zero counterparty risk. Didn't read the rest because if you fell over so early, it's likely I'd be here all day correcting the rest of it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "250e59e43c4663a659e26028f92aa583", "text": "I would track it using a regular asset account. The same way I would track the value of a house, a car, or any other personal asset. ETA: If you want automatic tracking, you could set it up as a stock portfolio holding shares of the GLD ETF. One share of GLD represents 1/10 ounce of gold. So, if you have 5 ounces of gold, you would set that up in Quicken as 50 shares of GLD.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "08cec8c13d6cc51c6f85f6b481c17691", "text": "Owning physical gold (assuming coins): Owning gold through a fund:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "842264f7e67962cdd9820c15a852e5f3", "text": "The Federal Reserve website notes that creditors must accept cash for debts on services already rendered, but that businesses may refuse cash for services not yet rendered unless prohibited by local law. The Treasury website includes examples of businesses limiting what cash they will accept: For example, a bus line may prohibit payment of fares in pennies or dollar bills. In addition, movie theaters, convenience stores and gas stations may refuse to accept large denomination currency (usually notes above $20) as a matter of policy.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "02a356426e29ae90e2620cb53aff3028", "text": "I still don't fully understand how gold is debt. I get that you made the connection that gold is money, and previously explained how money is debt. But that doesn't make gold debt. Gold is a commodity just as oil, apples, deer, shoes, etc. It might not provide any utility, but is still something people have come to value in and of itself.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8c507717d9501648c82e19ba942fa209", "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.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5474673d5aa76b4f48ff13ccc540e477", "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.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "584bd446fe497404fff91a9215141feb", "text": "\"Apartment complexes have had a long history of not accepting cash for payment of rent. This eliminates the problem of robbery and strongly reduces the risks of embezzlement. THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE Article 1, Section 10 of the US Constitution states: No State shall ... make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts Previous editions of banknotes stated that the notes were redeemable in gold or in lawful money. The Mint Act of 1792 set gold and silver as legal currency (and that one did not have to accept \"\"base metal coins\"\" for more than $10 which is why coin rolls only go up to $10). The Coinage Act of 1873 dropped silver and made gold the legal standard for currency. In 1933, the \"\"redeemable in gold\"\" was changed by federal statute and the legend you mention was added. Prior to 1933, someone could demand that you pay them in gold and not with a bank note. Legislation in 1933 ended that. This clause in the Constitution leads some political groups to wish to return to a gold standard. I recommend reading the book Greenback as it describes how our currency got the way it did and why that clause appears on currency.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7e23806abc4aac758bb9c06fc926f314", "text": "begin having them take community college courses while they are still in high school - this should be a better use of time than AP courses. if they continue and get an associates degree the credits should be transferrable anywhere take the associates degree to a state school and have them finish just their two years (4 semesters) at the state school. that should be an non-stressful and affordable approach that will give them a time/age-based advantage over their peers. so instead of playing with financial aid and retirement plan rules, this sort of goal can help you save, without creating inconsequential and unnecessary expectations for yourself or your family", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "9b9f9d0390fd07319e4f35714bb1d4c3", "text": "\"BlackJack's answer is technically correct: government credit ratings are independent of corporate credit ratings. The rating should reflect the borrower's ability to repay its obligations. One reason the book you read may have stated that corporate credit ratings cannot be better than the government's credit rating is that the government, unlike the corporation, can steal (or in government parlance \"\"tax\"\") from anywhere or anyone. So if a government finds itself in financial difficulty it could simply take the cash from corporations or people with high credit ratings by a variety of methods: implement windfall profit taxes, take over industries, take peoples gold, tax pension savings, or simply take peoples pensions or retirement savings. This increases the risk of doing business in a country with an over-extended government. Over extended governments do not die gracefully. They only die when there is nothing left to steal.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8723a73705f4f18937f82286dc564b0c", "text": "\"In one personal finance book I read that if a company is located in a country with credit rating X it can't have credit rating better (lower - i.e. further from AAA level) than X. This is simply wrong. Real world evidence proves it wrong. Automatic Data Processing (ADP), Exxon Mobile (XOM), Johnson & Johnson (JNJ), and Microsoft (MSFT) all have a triple-A rating today, even though the United States doesn't. Toyota (TM) remained triple-A for many years even after Japanese debt was downgraded. The explanation was the following: country has rating X because risk of doing business with it is X and so risk of doing business with any company located in that country automatically can't be better than X. When reading financial literature, you should always be critical. Let's evaluate this statement. First off, a credit rating is not the \"\"risk of doing business.\"\" That is way too generic. Specifically, a credit rating attempts to define an individual or company's ability to repay it's obligations. Buying treasuries constitutes as doing business with the gov't, but you can argue that buying stamps at USPS is also doing business with the gov't, and a credit rating won't affect the latter too much. So a credit rating reflects the ability of an entity to repay it's obligations. What does the ability of a government to repay have to do with the ability of companies in that country to repay? Not much. Certainly, if a company keeps it's surplus cash all in treasuries, then downgrading the government will affect the company, but in general, the credit rating of a company determines the company's ability to pay.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "20699ddd02b61af4bdf4d3704421330d", "text": "You borrow on the international makets. [Moody's predicts Scotland would get an 'A' credit rating](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-27247870) [Standard &amp; Poors - Independent Scotland could be AAA rated](http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/independent-scotland-could-be-aaa-rated-standard-poors) [Credit Suisse report independent Scotland would be ranked four places higher than the rUK.](http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-news/9637-scotland-ahead-of-ruk-even-without-oil-says-credit-suisse-report) [An independent Scotland would be a wealthy and financially viable country like New Zealand, but could suffer initial growing pains, according to credit ratings agency Standard &amp; Poor's.](http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/feb/27/independent-scottish-economy-viable-slow-first-standard-poors)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "953b47450cda011d6803d18a238445f0", "text": "When you start living in US, it doesn't actually matter what was your Credit history in another country. Your Credit History in US is tied to your SSN (Social Security Number), which will be awarded once you are in the country legally and apply for it. Getting an SSN also doesn't guarantee you nothing and you have to build your credit history slowly. Opening a Checking or Savings account will not help you in building a credit history. You need to have some type of Credit Account (credit card, car loan, mortgage etc.) linked to your SSN to start building your credit history. When you are new to US, you probably won't find any bank that will give you a Credit Card as you have no Credit history. One alternative is to apply for a secured credit card. A secured credit card is one you get by putting money or paying money to a bank and open a Credit Card against that money, thereby the bank can be secure that they won't lose any money. Once you have that, you can use that to build up your credit history slowly and once you have a good credit history and score, apply for regular Credit Card or apply for a car loan, mortgage etc. When I came to US 8 years ago, my Credit History was nothing, even though I had pretty good balance and credit history back in my country. I applied for secured credit card by paying $500 to a bank ( which got acquired by CapitalOne ), got it approved and used it for everything, for three years. I applied for other cards in the mean time but got rejected every time. Finally got approved for a regular credit card after three years and in one year added a mortgage and car loan, which helped me to get a decent score now. And Yes, a good Credit Score is important and essential for renting an apartment, leasing a car, getting a Credit Card etc. but normally your employer can always arrange for an apartment given your situation or you need to share apartment with someone else. You can rent a car without and credit score, but need a valid US / International Drivers license and a Credit Card :-) Best option will be to open a secured credit card and start building your credit. When your wife and family arrives, they also will be assigned individual SSN and can start building their credit history themselves. Please keep in mind that Credit Score and Credit History is always individual here...", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7398abe8544fccf27a34b60e839f28b3", "text": "You can check whether the company whose stock you want to buy is present on an european market. For instance this is the case for Apple at Frankfurt.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a3d0faea96982b5a5ffaa1971f1df44c", "text": "No. The information you are describing is technical data about a stock's market price and trading volume, only. There is nothing implied in that data about a company's financial fundamentals (earnings/profitability, outstanding shares, market capitalization, dividends, balance sheet assets and liabilities, etc.) All you can infer is positive or negative momentum in the trading of the stock. If you want to understand if a company is performing well, then you need fundamental data about the company such as you would get from a company's annual and quarterly reports.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "872d37b659b196edc2b87bc5f87f3ac7", "text": "It won't hurt your credit rating. I wouldn't worry about it. The company can certainly pursue debt collections across borders but unless its a massive sum.. they will write it off. Now.. what the right thing to do is to take care of it... 1. for karma's sake and 2. so you don't make a bad name for foreigners.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9a645e71c88b090fb161d6d1f0924ae6", "text": "\"Rating agencies are pretty garbage, the market is always a few steps ahead of them. However, India is rated lower as it has not been an economic \"\"power\"\" for a long time ans is still developing. However the market rates on bonds tell a different story, and that is that India is safer than Spain to lend to. It is also easier to go after assets in Spain a Eurozone country than India, however Indian debt in Rupees should be safer than Spanish debt in Euros as India can fire up the printer if necessary. Indian yield on the 10 year is ~ 8.5% inflation is 7.5% giving a real yield of 1% Spanish 10 year is 6.87% and Eurozone inflation is 2.4% giving a real yield of 4.47%. The market doesn't agree with S&amp;P.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e5c96d25cabfb16b086f42e029b0ba1a", "text": "\"Not entirely. For a creditor to go after the \"\"parent company\"\" in one of these cases requires the courts to be willing to \"\"pierce the corporate veil\"\" (in legal parlance). Typically this is only done if the parent company set up the wholly-owned-subsidiary in order to perpetrate a fraud. In this case, the subsidiary has a totally legitimate function - to sequester risk. While you're right that the parent company may have to offer some form of credit guarantees to get the subsidiary to get a loan, often those guarantees still don't create nearly as much exposure for the parent company.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b228fd9c49d849a76e562c6128b35a42", "text": "The key here is that you are defacto running your own company no matter if you acknowledge it or not. In the end these questions have the goal of deciding if you can and will repay the loan. Presumably you filed taxes on your income. These can be shown to the loan officer as proof you have the ability to repay your loan. Running your freelancing as a business has advantages of being able to deduct normal expenses for running the business from your revenue. I am not sure how business cards improves your credit worthiness as they can be had for $10 in about an hour.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "84f9f90ed7adee81f9e28ff3973c2926", "text": "Regardless, it doesn't indicate any financial stress or credit-related issues. Just because you are pissed off about the way the financial industry works, doesn't mean the banks are in poor shape. If France and Germany come crashing down, then you may have some evidence to back your point.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "55dc1bbd3528ca485ea549a23d352fa9", "text": "In the United Kingdom, there is a leading company that has been offering Progressive business funding solutions to the businesses for the last 120 years. Their service areas are South Africa, New Zealand, Ireland, Canada, Australia, USA, etc.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1f69b9b3b61d001e92118515fb873e53", "text": "gnasher729's answer is fundamentally correct and deserves the checkmark, but I'd like to give an economic explanation for how this economically functions. The key point from gnasher729's answer's that the interest rate is 49.9% for one company. While this may be much higher than the equilibrium rate, the true market interest rate, it is not completely unreasonable because of the risk. For credit to be continually produced, default risk must be compensated because this is a cost to the lender. Most are not in business to lose money, so making loans to borrowers that default 40% of the time would make this interest rate reasonable. For UK citizens, this would not be such a problem because the lender can usually pursue the borrower for the balance, but if the borrower can disavow the loan and leave the legal reach of the UK creditors, the collection rate is 0%. The guarantee by the foreign persons not present in the UK is incidental and probably more of a regulatory requirement since the inability to collect from them is just as unlikely. One should always look for the lowest price with at least minimum quality when shopping for anything, but you are right to be apprehensive legally. Read every line and be sure that you yourself understand every clause before signing. If alternative cheaper financing is available, it is probably superior.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cb1a38f02429161760fdfff00d8be026", "text": "Dunn & Bradstreet offers detailed credit reports on businesses. They are not cheap, but they appear to have information on RIOCAN.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "132e687702aa3c1ab0f5f97c9facfc6f", "text": "If you are interested in this stuff, S&amp;P produce a sovereign rating methodolgy, in which they will tell you exactly what factors they look at. Once you read this, you can obtain their latest rating report on India and Spain to understand how they applied said methodology in each case. (Not sure if this is free)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "18127088510ed511e14029a376fff64e", "text": "A) The Credit Rating Agencies only look at the month-end totals that are on your credit card, as this is all they ever get from the issuing bank. So a higher usage frequency as described would not make any direct difference to your credit rating. B) The issuing bank will know if you use the credit with the higher frequency, but it probably has little effect on your limit. Typically, after two to three month, they reevaluate your credit limit, and it could go up considerably if you never overdrew (and at this time, it could indirectly positively affect your credit rating). You could consider calling the issuing bank after two month and try to explain the history a bit and get them to increase the limit, but that only makes sense if your credit score has recovered. Your business paperwork could go a long way to convince someone, if you do so well now. C) If your credit rating is still bad, you need to find out why. It should have normalized to a medium range with the bad historic issues dropped.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3ade3fe075a328cb9ac02c1c950bfead", "text": "Credit scores in the U.S. are entirely based on information contained in your credit report. The details of your credit card transactions, such as where your individual purchases are from, the amount of individual purchases, refunds, chargebacks (successful or failed), etc. do not appear on your credit report. Therefore, they can have no impact on your credit score. According to creditsavvy.com.au, credit scores in Australia are based on similar information: the information in your credit history, credit profile, and credit applications. I don't see anything that would suggest that the details of your transactions would affect your credit score.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e", "text": "", "title": "" }, { "docid": "538fe0fb7780d4da227f8ac29f58e5f1", "text": "\"For any sort of investment you need to understand your risks first. If you're going to put money into the stock or bond market I would get a hold of Graham's \"\"The Intelligent Investor\"\" first, or any other solid value investing book, and educate yourself on what the risks are. I can't speak about real estate investing but I am sure there are plenty of books describing risks and benefits of that as well. I could see inflation/deflation having an effect there but I think the biggest impact on the landlord front is quality of life in the area you are renting and the quality of the tenant you can get. One crazy tenant and you will be driven mad yourself. As for starting a business, one thing I would like to say is that money does not automatically make money. The business should be driven by a product or service that you can provide first, and the backing seed capital second. In my opinion you will have to put energy and time worth much more than the 100k into a business over time to make it successful so the availability of capital should not be the driving decision here. Hope this helps more than it confuses.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7b3814bee32bbff489cc9ad4c2a1fdb0", "text": "You can start a software company. Than your office will be around the world and you can work whenever you want. If you can appoint some people who can collect work from here and there and the coder around the world can give you the job done(this can be done by posting your work in various freelancing site). It is challenging, because you have to get yourself up-to-date with the technological things.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1dafd282bb5c66c61fbf2635c3adf89c", "text": "As you have already good on your retirement kitty. Assuming you have a sufficient cash for difficult situations, explore the options of investing in Shares and Mutual Funds. As you are new to Stock Market, begin slowly by investing into Mutual Funds and ETF for precious metals. This will help you understand and give you confidence on markets and returns. Real estate is a good option, the down side being the hassle of getting rental and the illiquid nature of the investment.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ebc700f37f7823b58cf96ca1d3d587ae", "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.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "2c0c8bfb2dacdf0908a0ca468fa7203e", "text": "The following advice assumes that you have a significant amount already in the account in cash equivalents. If you are only talking a few hundred bucks or so, then just jump in at the next dip (like today's). If you have a larger amount to move into equities, the safest approach is to gradually move it into investments over some period of time at regular intervals regardless of what is going on in the market. This mitigates the risk of investing it all into an fund that is peaking at the exact moment you buy. So, for example, you might invest 20% of the total amount each month for 5 months to gradually get into the market. The larger the amount you are investing, the more you probably want to spread it out, but don't spread it out much further than a year or you are losing opportunity cost by leaving your money in cash-type investments with likely a very poor rate of return. This strategy is called dollar-cost averaging if you want to research it more.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f77161ebc75b3cf13e4813498cc4d564", "text": "There isn't any place you can put $300 and turn it into significant passive income. What you need to do instead is manage the active (work) income that you have so that your money goes farther, freeing income up for reducing debt and investing. Investing $300 one time won't add up to much, but investing $100 a month will turn into wealth over time. Making a monthly budget is the key to managing your income. In the process, you'll find out where your income is going, and you can be intentional about how much you want to spend on different things in your life. You can allocate some of your income to paying down debt and investing, which is what you need to do to get ahead. For some general guidelines on what to do with your money first, read this question: Oversimplify it for me: the correct order of investing. For more specifics on creating a budget, eliminating debt, and building wealth, I recommend the book The Total Money Makeover by Dave Ramsey.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "562199728b298b68e02ab2224814095c", "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.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a849b511991ca24f1b68207ffef4b33a", "text": "How do I direct deposit my paycheck into a high yield financial vehicle, like lottery tickets? And can I roll over my winnings into more lottery tickets? I want to wait until I have a few billion before touching it, maybe in a year or two.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "50f0f55d05c9ca3afe2902f82d83e655", "text": "You can't have even a hundred dollars without it being invested somewhere. If it's cash, you're invested in some nation state's currency. If that currency is USD, you have lost about 6% so far this year. But what if you were in the stock market? It's been doing pretty well, no? Thing is, American stocks are priced in American dollars. You have to put those variables together to see what a stock has really been doing.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b4a07897823bdd213012a5c4d7dcf56d", "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.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "391d43d1cf4f10b5872dc46e5f2045f0", "text": "Alright so you have $12,000 and you want to know what to do with it. The main thing here is, you're new to investments. I suggest you don't do anything quick and start learning about the different kinds of investment options that can be available to you with returns you might appreciate. The most important questions to ask yourself is what are your life goals? What kind of financial freedom do you want, and how important is this $12,000 dollars to you in achieving your life goals. My best advice to you and to anyone else who is looking for a place to put their money in big or small amounts when they have earned this money not from an investment but hard work is to find a talented and professional financial advisor. You need to be educated on the options you have, and keep them in lines of what risks you are willing to take and how important that principal investment is to you. Investing your money is not easy at all, and novices tend to lose their money a lot. The same way you would ask a lawyer for law advice, its best to consult a financial planner for advice, or so they can invest that money for you.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "087e6933bdc64feb0d5331a49f615b23", "text": "\"So, you have $100k to invest, want a low-maintenance investment, and personal finance bores you to death. Oooohhh, investment companies are gonna love you. You'll hand them a wad of cash, and more or less say \"\"do what you want.\"\" You're making someone's day. (Just probably not yours.) Mutual fund companies make money off of you regardless of whether you make money or not. They don't care one bit how carefully you look at your investments. As long as the money is in their hands, they get their fee. If I had that much cash, I'd be looking around for a couple of distressed homes in good neighborhoods to buy as rentals. I could put down payments on two of them, lock in fixed 30-year mortgages at 4% (do you realize how stupid low that is?) and plop tenants in there. Lots of tax write-offs, cash flow, the works. It's a 10% return if you learn about it and do it correctly. Or, there have been a number of really great websites that were sold on Flippa.com that ran into five figures. You could probably pay those back in a year. But that requires some knowledge, too. Anything worthwhile requires learning, maintenance and effort. You'll have to research stocks, mutual funds, bonds, anything, if you want a better than average chance of getting worthwhile returns (that is, something that beats inflation, which savings accounts and CDs are unlikely to do). There is no magic bullet. If someone does manage to find a magic bullet, what happens? Everyone piles on, drives the price up, and the return goes down. Your thing might not be real estate, but what is your thing? What excites you (i.e., doesn't bore you to death)? There are lots of investments out there, but you'll get out of it what you put into it.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d792f323f05b1db6ee224d964a05ab4d", "text": "A safe investment would be to get a 5-year CD from Ally Bank. No minimum deposit and no monthly maintenance fees. 1.74% APY at the moment. I would choose a 5-year CD since the early withdrawal penalty is only 60 days interest, which will be negligible for a $100 investment and increasing the term significantly increases your interest rate. Regarding other suggestions: Even if you find a way purchase stock commission free, it will probably cost a $5-$10 commission to sell, wiping out probably a year or two of gains. Also, I-Bonds must be held for a year minimum, which is problematic. At the end of the day, it's probably not really worth your time to do any of these. $2 a year or $5 a year, it's still fairly insignificant and your time is surely worth more than that.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ab63ebccd465e91061835ecbb7464e7b", "text": "First, what's the reason? Why do you have that much in cash at all - are you concerned about market volatility, are you planning to buy a house, do you have tens of millions of dollars and this is your slush fund? Are you a house flipper and this is part of business for you? If you need the money for short term use - ie, you're buying a house in cash next month - then as long as you're in a sound bank (one of the big national ones, for example) it seems reasonable. You can never predict a crash like 2008, but it seems unlikely that Chase or Citibank will go under in the next few weeks. If you like to have a cash position, then split the money among multiple banks. Buy a CD at one major bank with some of the amount. My in-laws have a trust which is partially invested in CDs, and they use multiple banks for this purpose to keep their accounts fully insured. Each separate bank you're covered up to 250k, so if you have $150k at Chase and $150k at a local bank, you're covered. (You're also covered in a much larger amount - up to 1MM potentially - if you are married, as you can have a separate account each for $250k and a joint account up to $500k.) Otherwise, why do you have that much in cash? You should invest it in something that will return more than inflation, at a minimum... Edit post-clarifications: $350k is around my level of 'Maybe, maybe not'. You're risking $100k on a pretty low risk (assuming this isn't a small local bank, and even those are pretty low still). In order to remove that risk you have to do something active - ie, take 100k somewhere else, open a new bank account, etc. - which isn't exactly the hardest thing in the world, but it does take effort. Is it worth the 0.001% chance (entirely made up) you lose the 100k? That's $10, if you agree with that risk chance. Up to you. It wouldn't be particularly hard, though, to open an account with an online bank, deposit $100k in there in a 6 month CD, then pay the IRS from your other account and when the 6 month CD expires take the cash back into your active account. Assuming you're not planning on buying a house in the next six months this should be fine, I'd think (and even then you'd still have $150k for the downpayment up front, which is enough to buy a $750k house w/o PMI). Additionally, as several commenters note: if you can reasonably do so, and your money won't be making significant interest, you might choose to pay your taxes now rather than later. This removes the risk entirely; the likely small interest you earn over 3 months may be similar to the amount you'd spend (mostly of your time, plus possibly actual expenses) moving it to another bank. If you're making 2% or 3% this may not be true, but if you're in a 0.25% account like my accounts are, $100k * 0.25% * 0.25 is $62.50, after all.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "992d568e9fb89ec12d5ec9d42554e089", "text": "What is your investing goal? And what do you mean by investing? Do you necessarily mean investing in the stock market or are you just looking to grow your money? Also, will you be able to add to that amount on a regular basis going forward? If you are just looking for a way to get $100 into the stock market, your best option may be DRIP investing. (DRIP stands for Dividend Re-Investment Plan.) The idea is that you buy shares in a company (typically directly from the company) and then the money from the dividends are automatically used to buy additional fractional shares. Most DRIP plans also allow you to invest additional on a monthly basis (even fractional shares). The advantages of this approach for you is that many DRIP plans have small upfront requirements. I just looked up Coca-cola's and they have a $500 minimum, but they will reduce the requirement to $50 if you continue investing $50/month. The fees for DRIP plans also generally fairly small which is going to be important to you as if you take a traditional broker approach too large a percentage of your money will be going to commissions. Other stock DRIP plans may have lower monthly requirements, but don't make your decision on which stock to buy based on who has the lowest minimum: you only want a stock that is going to grow in value. They primary disadvantages of this approach is that you will be investing in a only a single stock (I don't believe that can get started with a mutual fund or ETF with $100), you will be fairly committed to that stock, and you will be taking a long term investing approach. The Motley Fool investing website also has some information on DRIP plans : http://www.fool.com/DRIPPort/HowToInvestDRIPs.htm . It's a fairly old article, but I imagine that many of the links still work and the principles still apply If you are looking for a more medium term or balanced investment, I would advise just opening an online savings account. If you can grow that to $500 or $1,000 you will have more options available to you. Even though savings accounts don't pay significant interest right now, they can still help you grow your money by helping you segregate your money and make regular deposits into savings.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "034885719490c4aa45d6c1e091c10c41", "text": "\"What you're asking for is a short-term, large return investment. When looking for big returns in a short period of time, risk is inevitable. The more risk you are willing to assume, the higher your potential returns. Of course, the flip is is that the higher your risk, the higher the potential to lose all your money! Since this is an exercise for school (and not real money and not your life savings) your best bet is to \"\"go big or go home\"\". You can safely assume 100% risk! Don't look for value stocks, dividend stocks, or anything that pays a steady return over a long period of time. Instead, look for something risky that has the potential of going up, up, up in the next few months. Are you allowed to trade options in your fake portfolio? Options can have big risk and big reward potential. Penny stocks are super volatile, too. Do some research, look for a fad. In other words, you will most likely lose it all. But you get a little lucky, you could win this thing outright by making some risky investments. A 5% chance of winning $3000 vs 95% of going broke may be pretty good odds if everyone else is value investing for just a few months. You will need to get lucky. Go big or go home!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "966466d52e4f69435e9bd353a0e53e7d", "text": "You are long the puts. By exercising them you force the underlying stock to be bought from you at your strike price. Let's say your strike it $100 and the stock is currently $25. Buy 100 shares and exercise 1 (bought/long) put. That gives you $7500 of new money, so do the previous sentence over again in as many 'units' as you can.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c04c94c58cc1e469ef411466c4daa4f9", "text": "\"The €100'000 limit is per bank, where \"\"bank\"\" is defined as a financial institution with a banking license from one of the ECB members. \"\"WeltSparen\"\", is operated by the MHB-Bank which is a German bank, recognized by the Bundesbank. That means your money is initially guaranteed by the Bundesbank. When it's moved to the final saving account, you'll be saving at other banks, which are identified in the individual offerings. This can be an effective technique to split capitals in excess of €100.000. You should obviously look for banks that are backed by ECB member banks, but keep in mind what happened to Iceland: the national banks can also fail. In particular, the Bank of Italy at the moment is looking a bit shaky because Monte dei Paschi di Siena is currently failing and will require a bail-out. There's no official back-up for failing national banks within the ECB system.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "51863cda125d76edb58e5d99691c7392", "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.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "a9ba213c322de36dbdb0fdaee716f0b8", "text": "\"Are there businesses which professionally invest ethically? Yes. The common term for this is \"\"socially responsible investing\"\". Looking at that page and googling that term should provide you with plenty of pointers to funds to investigate. Of course, the definitions of \"\"ethical\"\" and \"\"socially responsible\"\" vary from person to person and fund to fund. You'll have to take a look at each fund to see which ones match your principles.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "281b87ce29ace56b33b832593ffd7a81", "text": "Avoiding tobacco, etc is fairly standard for a fund claiming ethical investing, though it varies. The hard one on your list is loans. You might want to check out Islamic mutual funds. Charging interest is against Sharia law. For example: http://www.saturna.com/amana/index.shtml From their about page: Our Funds favor companies with low price-to-earnings multiples, strong balance sheets, and proven businesses. They follow a value-oriented approach consistent with Islamic finance principles. Generally, these principles require that investors avoid interest and investments in businesses such as liquor, pornography, gambling, and banks. The Funds avoid bonds and other conventional fixed-income securities. So, it looks like it's got your list covered. (Not a recommendation, btw. I know nothing about Amana's performance.) Edit: A little more detail of their philosophy from Amana's growth fund page: Generally, Islamic principles require that investors share in profit and loss, that they receive no usury or interest, and that they do not invest in a business that is prohibited by Islamic principles. Some of the businesses not permitted are liquor, wine, casinos, pornography, insurance, gambling, pork processing, and interest-based banks or finance associations. The Growth Fund does not make any investments that pay interest. In accordance with Islamic principles, the Fund shall not purchase conventional bonds, debentures, or other interest-paying obligations of indebtedness. Islamic principles discourage speculation, and the Fund tends to hold investments for several years.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2e5bb05701d5b40caffbc5d98be9d723", "text": "Domini offers such a fund. It might suit you, or it might include things you wish to avoid. I'm not judging your goals, but would suggest that it might be tough to find a fund that has the same values as you. If you choose individual stocks, you might have to do a lot of reading, and decide if it's all or none, i.e. if a company seems to do well, but somehow has an tiny portion in a sector you don't like, do you dismiss them? In the US, Costco, for example, is a warehouse club, and treats employees well. A fair wage, benefits, etc. But they have a liquor store at many locations. Absent the alcohol, would you research every one of their suppliers?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cf5e2509b359dc37d07056f9830050ea", "text": "\"Markets are amoral. If you don't buy stock in a company that has high growth/earnings, someone else will. By abstaining you will actually make it cheaper for someone else who is interested in making money. Investing in \"\"socially responsible\"\" funds will only ensure that you have less money to make a moral difference in the world when you decide to transition from working to philanthropy. Edit to clarify -- You aren't interested in buying individual stocks directly, that leaves you with two general options: You can make a statement with your investment now, or you can take the better returns and make a difference with your money later.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "747c67c61f77e71e0193055130ee6ea0", "text": "There are a number of mutual funds which claim to be 'ethical'. Note that your definition of 'ethical' may not match theirs. This should be made clear in the prospectus of whichever mutual fund you are looking at. You will likely pay for the privilege of investing this way, in higher expenses on the mutual fund. If I may suggest another option, you may want to consider investing in low-fee mutual funds or ETFs and donating some of the profit to offset the moral issues you see.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "19cf023e3f5de9b66e48a1b8b43787c0", "text": "There are the Dow Jones Sustainability Indices. I believe the reports used to create them are released to the public. This could be a good place to start.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a6a908e79622930b75bd84c3ed3768c8", "text": "Peer to peer lending such as Kiva, Lending Club, Funding Circle(small business), SoFi(student loans), Prosper, and various other services provide you with access to the 'basic form' of investing you described in your question. Other funds: You may find the documentary '97% Owned' fascinating as it provides an overview of the monetary system of England, with parallels to US, showing only 3% of money supply is used in exchange of goods and services, 97% is engaged in some form of speculation. If speculative activities are of concern, you may need to denounce many forms of currency. Lastly, be careful of taking the term addiction too lightly and deeming something unethical too quickly. You may be surprised to learn there are many people like yourself working at 'unethical' companies changing them within.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "6d9785cd80cb5526be4badf850cac28e", "text": "The problem is I can't do anything with those morals. I can't grow my company with it, I can't pay my employees with it and I can't buy things with it. You should he as moral as possible, but when you are so moral that you start making moral choices that just doesn't cost you money but can sink the company or increase the workload on your employees you've done an disservice to your employees.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "033b3dc786aabf615ad1a76442c0e644", "text": "\"There are moral distinctions that can be drawn between gambling and investing in stocks. First and I think most important, in gambling you are trying to get money for nothing. You put $100 down on the roulette wheel and you hope to get $200 back. In investing you are not trying to get something for nothing. You are buying a piece of a hopefully profit-making company. You are giving this company the use of your money, and in exchange you get a share of the profits. That is, you are quite definitely giving something: the use of your money for a period of time. You invest $100 of your money, and you hope to see that grow by maybe $5 or $10 a year typically. You may get a sudden windfall, of course. You may buy a stock for $100 today and tomorrow it jumps to $200. But that's not the normal expectation. Second, gambling is a zero sum game. If I gamble and win $100, then someone else had to lose $100. Investing is not a zero sum game. If I buy $100 worth of stock in a company and that grows to $200, I have in a sense \"\"won\"\" $100. But no one has lost $100 to give me that money. The money is the result of the profit that the company made by selling a valuable product or service to customers. When I go to the grocery store and buy a dozen eggs for $2, some percentage of that goes to the stockholders in the grocery store, say 5 cents. So did I lose 5 cents by buying those eggs? No. To me, a dozen eggs are worth at least $2, or I wouldn't have bought them. I got exactly what I paid for. I didn't lose anything. Carrying that thought further, investing in the stock market puts money into businesses. It enables businesses to get started and to grow and expand. Assuming these are legitimate businesses, they then provide useful products and services to customers. Gambling does not provide useful products and services to anyone -- except to the extent that people enjoy the process of gambling, in which case you could say that it is equivalent to playing a video game or watching a movie. Third -- and these are all really related -- the whole goal of gambling is to take something from another person while giving him nothing in return. Again, if I buy a dozen eggs, I give the store my $2 (or whatever amount) and I get a dozen eggs in exchange. I got something of value and the store got something of value. We both walk away happy. But in gambling, my goal is that I will take your money and give you nothing in return. It is certainly true that buying stocks involves risk, and we sometimes use the word \"\"gamble\"\" to describe any risk. But if it is a sin to take a risk, then almost everything you do in life is a sin. When you cross the street, there is a risk that you will be hit by a car you didn't see. When you drink a glass of water, there is the risk that it is contaminated and will poison you. When you get married, there is a risk that your spouse will divorce you and break your heart. Etc. We are all sinners, we all sin every day, but we don't sin quite THAT much. :-) (BTW I don't think that gambling is a sin. Nothing in the Bible says that gambling is a sin. But I can comprehend the argument for it. I think gambling is foolish and I don't do it. My daughter works for a casino and she has often said how seeing people lose money in the casino regularly reminds her why it is stupid to gamble. Like she once commented on people who stand between two slot machines, feed them both coins and then pull the levers down at the same time, \"\"so that\"\", she said, \"\"they can lose their money twice as fast\"\".)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4cc24c165a83ad313d3ea6fe0d39b533", "text": "\"I'm no expert on this, but I would say that, if you own the business entirely yourself, there is nothing terribly wrong with using it for your own purposes as you would any other asset that you own. What is wrong is not keeping accurate records that distinguish between your money and the business's. As you say, this is wrong strategically, but it can also be dangerous legally, because if you mix your money and the business's money and don't keep track, you could find, for instance, that you've failed to pay the taxes you were supposed to. There is also a concern that might not fall under what people refer to as \"\"ethics\"\" but more \"\"good corporate citizenship\"\". Basically, people tend not to like companies that just shovel all their gains into the owners' pockets. This is especially true if there are ways the money could be used to improve the business. In other words, if you're able to live high on the hog with the profits while paying all your employees a pittance, the public may not look favorably on your business.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c4ec080f48901e5d1591782ca087bcba", "text": "The Trinity study looked at 'safe' withdrawal rates from retirement portfolios. They found it was safe to withdraw 4% of a portfolio consisting of stocks and bonds. I cannot immediately find exactly what specific investment allocations they used, but note that they found a portfolio consisting largely of stocks would allow for the withdrawal of 3% - 4% and still keep up with inflation. In this case, if you are able to fund $30,000, the study claims it would be safe to withdraw $900 - $1200 a year (that is, pay out as scholarships) while allowing the scholarship to grow sufficiently to cover inflation, and that this should work in perpetuity. My guess is that they invest such scholarship funds in a fairly aggressive portfolio. Most likely, they choose something along these lines: 70 - 80% stocks and 20 - 30% bonds. This is probably more risky than you'd want to take, but should give higher returns than a more conservative portfolio of perhaps 50 - 60% stocks, 40 - 50% bonds, over the long term. Just a regular, interest-bearing savings account isn't going to be enough. They almost never even keep up with inflation. Yes, if the stock market or the bond market takes a hit, the investment will suffer. But over the long term, it should more than recover the lost capital. Such scholarships care far more about the very long term and can weather a few years of bad returns. This is roughly similar to retirement planning. If you expect to be retired for, say, 10 years, you won't worry too much about pulling out your retirement funds. But it's quite possible to retire early (say, at 40) and plan for an infinite retirement. You just need a lot more money to do so. $3 million, invested appropriately, should allow you to pull out approximately $90,000 a year (adjusted upward for inflation) forever. I leave the specifics of how to come up with $3 million as an exercise for the reader. :) As an aside, there's a Memorial and Traffic Safety Fund which (kindly and gently) solicited a $10,000 donation after my wife was killed in a motor vehicle accident. That would have provided annual donations in her name, in perpetuity. This shows you don't need $30,000 to set up a scholarship or a fund. I chose to go another way, but it was an option I seriously considered. Edit: The Trinity study actually only looked at a 30 year withdrawal period. So long as the investment wasn't exhausted within 30 years, it was considered a success. The Trinity study has also been criticised when it comes to retirement. Nevertheless, there's some withdrawal rate at which point your investment is expected to last forever. It just may be slightly smaller than 3-4% per year.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ec424b8304b09e414879c974e3e7db78", "text": "\"You are conflating two different types of risk here. First, you want to invest money, and presumably you're not looking at the \"\"lowest risk, lowest returns\"\" end of the spectrum. This is an inherently risky activity. Second, you are in a principal-agent relationship with your advisor, and are exposed to the risk of your advisor not maximizing your profits. A lot has been written on principal-agent theory, and while incentive schemes exist, there is no optimal solution. In your case, you hope that your agent will start maximizing your profits if they are 100% correlated with his profits. While this idea is true (at least according to standard economic theory, you could find exceptions in behavioral economics and in reality), it also forces the agent to participate in the first risk. From the point of view of the agent, this does not make sense. He is looking to render services and receive income for it. An agent with integrity is certainly prepared to carry the risk of his own incompetence, just like Apple is prepared to replace your iPhone should it not start one day. But the agent is not prepared to carry additional risks such as the market risk, and should not be compelled to do so. It is your risk, a risk you personally take by deciding to play the investment gamble, and you cannot transfer it to somebody else. Of course, what makes the situation here more difficult than the iPhone example is that market-driven losses cannot be easily distinguished from incompetent-agent losses. So, there is no setup in which you carry the market risk only and your agent carries the incompetence risk only. But as much as you want a solution in which the agent carries all risk, you probably won't find an agent willing to sign such a contract. So you have to simply accept that both the market risk and the incompetence risk are inherent to being an investor. You can try to mitigate your own incompetence by having an advisor invest for you, but then you have to accept the risk of his incompetence. There is no way to depress the total incompetence risk to zero.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f010325a3fe156fe86ddd14c85278e5e", "text": "\"Of course. \"\"Best\"\" is a subjective term. However relying on the resources of the larger institutions by pooling with them will definitely reduce your own burden with regards to the research and keeping track. So yes, investing in mutual funds and ETFs is a very sound strategy. It would be better to diversify, and not to invest all your money in one fund, or in one industry/area. That said, there are more than enough individuals who do their own research and stock picking and invest, with various degrees of success, in individual securities. Some also employe more advanced strategies such as leveraging, options, futures, margins, etc. These advance strategies come at a greater risk, but may bring a greater rewards as well. So the answer to the question in the subject line is YES. For all the rest - there's no one right or wrong answer, it depends greatly on your abilities, time, risk tolerance, cash available to invest, etc etc.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "be3f373f8d70b137501de20014c0ab9d", "text": "&gt; So what’s the problem? When investors put their money in an index like the S&amp;P 500, they believe that they are just investing in “the market”, broadly. But now, these for-profit indices have made an active decision to exclude certain stocks on the basis of their voting structures. The author doesn't seem to understand the difference between the companies creating the passive funds that track the indices and the companies creating the indices that are being tracked. Indices have always been subject to somewhat arbitrary rules for what is being included and how its value is calculated. So this article is completely missing the point.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "679be605950dfa4c18994648a37208cd", "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!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8a068fa190333f4dd6c787d7870e26db", "text": "Sorry, but obeying the law is ethical. You're silly symbols are wrong... you probably meant: legal != ethical Here is a thought experiment for you: So the speed limit is 60 Mph. You drive 15 Mph in that area, that is ethical driving, because there is no law governing the minimum rate of speed. It's like that... You might be an asshole for driving too slow, but you're not breaking the law. Tax is like that...", "title": "" }, { "docid": "44ae3d4bba0e22b861697888d10c402a", "text": "When you start confusing morality with legality is when you enable corporations to take advantage of you. Consider the scenario if the roles were reversed. If the bank owned money to *you*, do you think they would hesitate to default on that obligation for even a nanosecond if it was in their best interests to do so?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "367d7c4e582b1dab27baf98686a745e7", "text": "It's also an incorrect assumption. I assume that we're looking at the S&amp;L scandal as one of the three, and it wasn't very connected to Ivy leaguers. Only one of the Keating 5 went to an Ivy, and S&amp;L's generally weren't run by Ivy grads. Investment banks are, especially these days, but that doesn't show a disproportionate likelihood of immorality among Ivies when compared to any other subset of the population.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b990865408156bb2715fe8bcd64b1ad3", "text": "A practical issue is that insider trading transfers wealth from most investors to the few insiders. If this were permitted, non-insiders would rarely make any money, and they'd stop investing. That would then defeat the purpose of the capital markets which is to attract capital. A moral issue is that managers and operators of a company should act in shareholders' interests. Insider trading directly takes money from other shareholders and transfers it to the insider. It's a nasty conflict of interest (and would allow any CEO of a public company to make ton of money quickly, regardless of their job performance). In short, shareholders and management should succeed or suffer together, so their interests are as aligned as possible and managers have the proper incentives.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fe2aca48fc1afdc119c92468c2111de1", "text": "\"The golden rule is \"\"Pay yourself first.\"\" This means that you should have some form of savings plan set up, preferably a monthly automatic withdrawal that comes out the day after your pay is deposited. 10% is a reasonable number to start with. You are in a wonderful situation because you are thinking about this 10-15 years before most of us do. Use this to your advantage. You are also in a good situation if you can defer the purchase of the house (assuming prices don't rise drastically in the next few years -- which they might.) If your home situation is acceptable, then sit down with the parents and present a plan. Something along the lines of: I'd like to move out and start my life. However, it would be advantageous to stay here for a few years to build up a down payment and reserve. I'm happy to help out with expenses, but do need a couple years of rent-free support to get started. Then go into monk mode for one year. It's doable, and you can save a lot of cash. Then you're on the road to freedom.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "76a9ed4fab9cd5cc581ca44a192f6936", "text": "\"From Wikipedia: Managerial accounting is used primarily by those within a company or organization. Reports can be generated for any period of time such as daily, weekly or monthly. Reports are considered to be \"\"future looking\"\" and have forecasting value to those within the company.** Financial accounting is used primarily by those outside of a company or organization. Financial reports are usually created for a set period of time, such as a fiscal year or period. Financial reports are historically factual and have predictive value to those who wish to make financial decisions or investments in a company. At my university, managerial accounting focused more on the details of how costs were managed in the company, the future of the business, etc. while the courses that were considered financial accounting were more from the point of view of a financial analyst or investor, like you said. The financial accountancy material covered analysis of financial statements and the associated investment decisions, among other things. These areas overlapped in areas like the production of financial statements, since the company also needs to consider how analysts will interpret these statements, and dividend policy, corporate tax accounting, etc. The Wikipedia articles on managerial accounting and financial accounting may provide helpful information as well. Disclaimer: I took an introductory accounting course in university and nothing more, so my knowledge of the course structures, even at my alma mater, is secondhand recollection at best. I'm sure there are more similarities and differences of which I'm unaware, and I would assume that forensic accountants, auditors, etc. dabble in both these areas and others.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "9a4e7fc0bf4e90711a42264e05be3146", "text": "I believe the appropriate recourse in this scenario is to bring a court case for breach of contract. The 1p repricing issue has been admitted as an error out of scope of the purpose of the software.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "ef551aae36a2701bbd7ffe1feb39d5e6", "text": "\"i dont know how they would buy *term* policies though, i suppose there is an actuarial value to the policy (ie. you might die during the policy term). A lot of these polices are \"\"10 year term\"\" or something like that, so the actuarial value might be significant. (a lot of people get these who cant get whole life or cant afford to get it, with the health problems they now have). Something tells me these transactions are not very advantageous to the insured (especially since i've seen them heavily advertised on channels my mom tends to watch)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6e81bf8a1bf5de00804b5de94b6a7118", "text": "\"I am leaning more towards the belief that Amazon registered for the patent to keep other competitors from using such a system. I mean, the article even states: \"\"The Washington Post is owned by Jeff Bezos.\"\" You'd have to be an imbecile to allow a newspaper organization that you own to post an article that is defaming your latest patent. As sick of a human being Jeff may be, he's a billionaire for one reason: brilliance. He intended to have this information released to competitors. Nonetheless, this is a very ominous and scary technological innovation. The rapid, unrestricted pace of technology is beginning to frighten me.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "89dda066ba2eec4f675e094aaa531a4e", "text": "\"First off, the jargon you are looking for is a hedge. A hedge is \"\"an investment position intended to offset potential losses/gains that may be incurred by a companion investment\"\" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedge_(finance)) The other answers which point out that put options are frequently used as a hedge are correct. However there are other hedging instruments used by financial professionals to mitigate risk. For example, suppose you would really prefer that Foo Corporation not go bankrupt -- perhaps because they own you money (because you're a bondholder) or perhaps because you own them (because you're a stockholder), or maybe you have some other reason for wanting Foo Corp to do well. To mitigate the risk of loss due to bankruptcy of Foo Corp you can buy a Credit Default Swap (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_default_swap). A CDS is essentially a bet that pays off if Foo Corp goes bankrupt, just as insurance on your house is a bet that pays off if your house burns down. Finally, don't ever forget that all insurance is not just a bet that the bad thing you're insuring against is going to happen, it is also a bet that the insurer is going to pay you if that happens. If the insurer goes bankrupt at the same time as the thing you are insuring goes bad, you're potentially in big trouble.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "759a233a96806f93816c5a6d2e5187e1", "text": "That's not true - insurance companies can manage that risk and look to Re-insure that risk with very large pools of risk capital through reinsurance. Government agencies traditionally have not looked to buy insurance but are now starting to insure such catastrophic risks. I believe the NFIP has some sort of excess risk cover such that if losses are greater than $500 million, then it triggers a payout from large private insurers.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a97a55ff1d603849bb7ca369e42394b4", "text": "\"SIPC is a corporation - a legal entity separate from its owners. In the case of SIPC, it is funded through the fees paid by its members. All the US brokers are required to be members and to contribute to SIPC funds. Can it go bankrupt? Of course. Any legal entity can go bankrupt. A person can go bankrupt. A country can go bankrupt. And so can anything in between. However, looking at the history of things, there are certain assumptions that can be made. These are mere guesses, as there's no law about any of these things (to the best of my knowledge), but seeing how things were - we can try and guess that they will also be like this in the future. I would guess, that in case of a problem for the SIPC to meet its obligation, any of the following would happen (or combinations): Too big to fail - large insurance companies had been bailed out before by the governments since it was considered that their failure would be more destructive to the economy than the bailout. AIG as an example in the US. SIPC is in essence is an insurance company. So is Lloyd's of London. Breach of trust of the individual investors that can lead to a significant market crash. That's what happened in the US to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They're now \"\"officially\"\" backed by the US government. If SIPC is incapable of meeting its obligation, I would definitely expect the US government to step in, even though there's no such obligation. Raising funds through charging other members. If the actuary calculations were incorrect, the insurance companies adjust them and raise premiums. That is what should happen in this case as well. While may not necessarily solve a cashflow issue, in the long term it will allow SIPC to balance, so that bridge loans (from the US government/Feds/public bonds) could be used in between. Not meeting obligations, i.e.: bankruptcy. That is an option, and insurance companies have gone bankrupt before. Not unheard of, but from the past experience - again, I'd expect the US government to step in. In general, I don't see any significant difference between SIPC in the US and a \"\"generic\"\" insurance coverage elsewhere. Except that in the US SIPC is mandatory, well regulated, and the coverage is uniform across brokerages, which is a benefit to the consumer.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "051f2276a2b472127997c5a796a57e55", "text": "All lenders make money from loans, despite the fact that there will be some defaults, they just have to make enough money from those that don't default to offset the losses from those that do, so that their over all profit is good enough to be justified, so there's no reason the p2p lending companies can't protect your loan. If you remove the risk of losing your investment you can expect your return to be reduced though, as they have to take more profit away from you in order to fund the pool used to pay out when there is a default. This doesn't necessarily mean your money is completely safe though, if the p2p lender itself went bust you would probably still lose your money, unless it was appropriately insured. I'm not sure liquidity is really the right word really, liquidity is about encashment without serious penalty. If you can transfer the debt to someone else at any time then liquidity is good, but if you don't really have that option (as most lenders don't) then your investment amount (whatever isn't paid back yet) is completely illiquid still, just for a shorter time. I don't see how the term is important myself, there are many investments that have differing maturity time scales, and you just have to pick one that has a suitable time scale, return and risk for you. 1% charge or not, there is still an ultimate net return on investment, secondary market or not. Virtually any investment has costs of some sort, you just have to take them into account and make sure you don't get fooled into thinking the ROI is better than it seems because of the way they've packaged and presented it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "afb9f91c13c757a3611295ae29dbd359", "text": "In general, damage caused intentionally as well as contractual liability are not covered under liability insurance policies.  Direct quote from your source... Use some logic. How can a company be profitable insuring stupidity? Show me an example where gross negligence was covered by an insurance company and billions paid out. that's all I ask....", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5feb5f8b82c3b4fc1291b1a222dbae55", "text": "To make matters worse, many, perhaps most, of the common POS systems seem to be based on Windows XP and are running AV, neither of which have ever been updated. Merchants have no idea how much they're at risk. Fortunately, there are non-Windows POS systems, and POS that will run on newer versions of Windows. But merchants have to demand those.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "75055274917ce7ca792f1db9df005174", "text": "\"Just coughed out my morning coffee on this one. I bet even Bezos leaves disabled the \"\"buy without confirmation\"\" option in his Alexa config. That shit could be potentially dangerous. ...then again, dude is a billionaire. Maybe he doesn't care if Alexa accidently orders him a $20,000 sofa when he was just looking to buy more cereal.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "54bb445de033c81fb0cf87b81e81f6cb", "text": "I'll give it a shot, even though you don't seem to be responding to my comment. SIPC insures against fraud or abuse of its members. If you purchased a stock through a SIPC member broker and it was held in trust by a SIPC member, you're covered by its protection. Where you purchased the stock - doesn't matter. There are however things SIPC doesn't cover. That said, SIPC members are SEC-registred brokers, i.e.: brokers operating in the USA. If you're buying on the UK stock exchange - you need to check that you're still operating through a US SIPC member. As I mentioned in the comment - the specific company that you mentioned has different entities for the US operations and the UK operations. Buying through them on LSE is likely to bind you with their UK entity that is not SIPC member. You'll have to check that directly with them.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8e8f67d9c662da5f7b053f4f3406ee69", "text": "It tells you more about some of the convoluted rules put in place by FDA and ither regulatory agencies. It's next to impossible to introduce a true generic competitor. Really not a issue with the insurer as they must cover stuff only approved via the Fed agencies.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7d521679378f98bf85317e23e590eddc", "text": "\"My thought is it is a \"\"safe bet\"\" as far as stocks go. Amazon is going to be around for a long time and is very innovative. I am willing to bet most people purchase the stock on that fact alone. Not its P/E and ROE.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7f87075f1e043582b0fc0951329708af", "text": "The article mentions it briefly, but this is likely a defensive patent. So much of Amazon's business comes from cross-checking or reading reviews in retail stores. I bet they just want to make sure people can still do that.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a11b3faa4f2d442093ab3f4f0a497ccc", "text": "\"If your meaning of \"\"asset protection\"\" is buying gold and canned food in the name of a Nevada LLC because some radio guy said so, bad idea. For a person, if you have assets, buy appropriate liability limits with your homeowner/renter insurance policy or purchase an \"\"umbrella\"\" liability policy. This type of insurance is cheap. If you don't have assets, it may not be worth the cost of insuring yourself beyond the default limits on your renter's or homeowner's policy. If you have a business, you need to talk to your insurance agent about what coverage is appropriate for the business as a whole vs. you personally. You also need to talk to your attorney about how to conduct yourself so that your business interests are separated from your personal interests.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9898784d2a734bcb80dcf5e954f19d2c", "text": "\"I decline politely. The cost of the insurance policy has two components: The actual cost of a likely repair + profit. If I set aside the cost of a likely repair myself, then I get to keep the profit. If the item doesn't break, I get to keep the \"\"repair\"\" money too :)\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "9cf24905eb8a622c1f126f7420ec46f5", "text": "Assets can be acquired in different ways and for different purposes. I will only address common legal ways of acquiring assets. You can trade one asset for another asset. This usually takes place in the form of trading cash or a cash equivalent for an asset. The asset received should be of equal or greater value than the asset given in the eyes of the purchaser in order for the trade to be rational. Take this example: I am selling a bike that has been sitting on my porch for a few months. It's worth about $25 to me. My friend, Andy, comes by and offers $90 for it. I happily accept. Andy valued the bike at $110. This transaction produced value for both parties. I had a value benefit of $65 (90 - 25) and Andy had a value benefit of $20 (110 - 90). You can receive an asset as a gift or an inheritance. Less common, but still frequent. Someone gives you a gift or a family member dies and you receive an asset you did not own previously. You can receive an asset in exchange for a liability. When you take out a loan, you receive an asset (cash) which is financed by a liability (loan payable). In your case: Why would I buy a mall if having assets worth the same amount as the mall? I must value the mall more than the assets I currently have. This may stem from the possibility of greater future returns than I am currently making on my asset, or, if I financed the purchase with a liability, greater future returns than the cost associated with payment on the principal and interest of the liability.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0dae3c71c0be6a7e8dbc23075eadc0e3", "text": "Your question seems to be premised on your personal understanding of economics, and asking that people present to you an explanation of business transactions that is consistent with your own personal worldview. But your premises are flawed, so an accurate answer should not accept them. The basics of trade is that something is worth more to one person than another; a wheat farmer has more wheat that they could possibly eat, and so it has no value other than what they can get by selling it, while an accountant will starve if they do not have any food and thus is willing to pay what the market demands. The two parties can both be better off by having a transaction. The other motivation for transactions is that parties may disagree as to what something is worth; even if one party will lose from the transaction, they may both believe they will profit.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1b2dd431b4ecc0f4628fb920d23cf43c", "text": "You don't start out buying a shopping mall, you have to work up to it. You can start with any amount and work up to a larger amount. For me, I saved 30% of my salary(net), investing in stocks for 8 years. It was tough to live on less, but I had a goal to buy passive income. I put down this money to buy 3 houses, putting 35% down and maintaining enough cash to make 5 years of payments. I rented out the houses making a cap of 15%. The cap is the net payment per year / cost of the property, where the net accounts for taxes and repairs. I did not spend any of the profits, but I did start saving less salary. After 5 years of appreciation, mortgage payments and rental profit, I sold one house to get a loan for a convenience store. Buildings go on the market all the time, it takes 14 years to directly recoup an investment at a 7% cap, which is the average for a commercial property sale. Many people cash out for this reason, it's slow, but steady growth, though the earnings on property appreciation is a nice bonus. Owning real estate is a long term game, after a long time of earning, you can reinvest, but it comes with the risk of bad or no tenants. You can start both slower and smaller, just make sure you're picking up assets, not liabilities. Like investing in cars is generally bad unless you are sure it will appreciate.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4078a96aeff4715cb00cb0d8b5b0b48e", "text": "There are a number of ways someone acquires assets without buying it. People could have inherited assets. They could have been gifted assets. They might have won assets in a lawsuit (unlikely to be a mall, but not impossible). They could have married into the assets. So there's other ways of acquiring assets without purchasing them.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "bb750db5c4afe36515022584db08d3dd", "text": "There is no reason to ever do DCA. You'll notice that no asset managers would ever dream of it. You should invest your money as soon as you get it. Throughout history, this is the utility maximizing choice. The market rises on average. Why would you keep money out of it?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4be1712bc31d7fa78eee37ac2c171b30", "text": "\"Your question asks \"\"how\"\" but \"\"if\"\" may be your issue. Most companies will not permit an external transfer while still employed, or under a certain age, 55 or so. If yours is one of the rare companies that permits a transfer, you simply open an IRA with the broker of your choice. Schwab, Fidelity, eTrade, or a dozen others. That broker will give you the paperwork you need to fill out, and they initiate the transfer. I assume you want an IRA in which you can invest in stocks or funds of your choosing. A traditional IRA. The term \"\"self-directed\"\" has another meaning, often associated with the account that permits real estate purchases inside the account. The brokers I listed do not handle that, those custodians have a different business model and are typically smaller firms with fewer offices, not country-wide.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "230984d1dc54df5eba50d8d40e9b1046", "text": "Most likely, this will not work they way you think. First things first, to get a loan, the bank needs to accept your collateral. Note that this is not directly related to the question what you plan to do with the loan. Example: you have a portfolio of stocks and bonds worth USD 2 million. The bank decides to give you a loan of USD 1 million against that collateral. The bank doesn't care if you will use the loan to invest in foreign RE or use it up in a casino, it has your collateral as safety. So, from the way you describe it, I take it you don't have the necessary local collateral but you wish to use your foreign investments as such. In this case it really doesn't matter where you live or where you incorporate a company, the bank will only give you the loan if it accepts the foreign collateral. From professional experience with this exact question I can tell you, there are very few banks that will lend against foreign property. And there are even less banks, if any, that will lend against foreign projects. To sum it up: Just forget banks. You might find a private lender to help you out but it will cost you dearly. The best option you have is to find a strategic partner who can cough up the money you need but since he is taking the bigger risk, he will also take the bigger profit share.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e43f9d61bad87cff37e8eca0c342c31e", "text": "I find that when I have to justify why I want something to someone else, I eliminate impulse buys because I have to think about it enough to explain to someone else why it is desirable. Simply going through that process in my own head in advance of a conversation to justify it I talk myself out of a lot of purchases. I'm married, so I have these conversations with my wife. She is very supportive of me buying things that I want if they will bring value. If I wasn't married and couldn't control my spending, I'd find a good friend or relative that I trust, and I would create a trust with me as the primary beneficiary, and I would appoint a trustee who was willing to sign off on any purchase that I wanted to make after justifying it to them. If I had no friends or relatives that I trusted in that role, I'd hire a financial adviser to fill the same role. Contractually I would want to be able to terminate the arrangement if it was not working, but that would mean sacrificing the legal fees to alter the trust and appoint a new trustee.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b150e9c76963f936b4a6cfa0b2a5ae48", "text": "\"I'll skip the \"\"authorizing....\"\" and go right to uses of new shares: Companies need stock as another liquid asset for a variety of purposes, and if not enough stock is available, then may be forced to the open market to acquire, either by exchanging cash or taking on debt to get the cash.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ad563586bd99c80f736b254758cb0f82", "text": "You can put it in a CD, or use a CD investment service like http://www.jumbocdinvestments.com/ (no affiliation).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "49f29b55b33e9105340e11bfb78539e9", "text": "You also may want to consider how this interacts with the stepped up basis of estates. If you never sell the stock and it passes to your heirs with your estate, under current tax law the basis will increase from the purchase price to the market price at the time of transfer. In a comment, you proposed: Thinking more deeply though, I am a little skeptical that it's a free lunch: Say I buy stock A (a computer manufacturer) at $100 which I intend to hold long term. It ends up falling to $80 and the robo-advisor sells it for tax loss harvesting, buying stock B (a similar computer manufacturer) as a replacement. So I benefit from realizing those losses. HOWEVER, say both stocks then rise by 50% over 3 years. At this point, selling B gives me more capital gains tax than if I had held A through the losses, since A's rise from 80 back to 100 would have been free for me since I purchased at 100. And then later thought Although thinking even more (sorry, thinking out loud here), I guess I still come out ahead on taxes since I was able to deduct the $20 loss on A against ordinary income, and while I pay extra capital gains on B, that's a lower tax rate. So the free lunch is $20*[number of shares]*([my tax bracket] - [capital gains rates]) That's true. And in addition to that, if you never sell B, which continues to rise to $200 (was last at $120 after a 50% increase from $80), the basis steps up to $200 on transfer to your heirs. Of course, your estate may have to pay a 40% tax on the $200 before transferring the shares to your heirs. So this isn't exactly a free lunch either. But you have to pay that 40% tax regardless of the form in which the money is held. Cash, real estate, stocks, whatever. Whether you have a large or small capital gain on the stock is irrelevant to the estate tax. This type of planning may not matter to you personally, but it is another aspect of what wealth management can impact.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3ca2a36926c308393a021d671a4ad8ff", "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.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3dd94d11762f4a6bb127f5f9da57cd75", "text": "No, this is not generally possible, as each security purchase is booked as a separate order => hence separate transaction. You can do this through purchasing of a fund, i.e.: purchasing one share of a ETF will get you a relative share of the ETF holdings, but the actual holdings are not up to you then.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9c2486bf10b899839d0c29cb649f96a3", "text": "Yes, but only if they're looking for investors. You would need to contact them directly. Unless you're looking to invest a significant sum, they may not be interested in speaking with you. (Think at least 6 figures, maybe 7 depending on their size and needs). This is otherwise known as being a Venture Capitalist. Some companies don't want additional investors because the capital isn't yet needed and they don't want to give up shares in the profit/control. Alternatively, you could try and figure out which investment groups already have a stake in the company you're interested in. If those companies are publicly traded, you could buy stocks for their company with the expectation that their stock price will increase if the company you know of does well in the long run.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6e7f88b56677a917045c41db97d6ced0", "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.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7c69c1b2b0e3b0843a3c06ab45855ff3", "text": "\"You want to \"\"begin building a nice portfolio\"\" comprised of \"\"real estate\"\" and \"\"solar and wind\"\". There are ways to do that without starting your own solar power farm or buying giant wind turbines, or whole apartment complexes. They're called ETFs. They're diversified and it's unlikely that you'll use the entirety of your initial investment.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4e6b3c3d49316238ac8a589d1dd171d9", "text": "\"The problem here can be boiled down to that fact you are attempting to obtain a loan without collateral. There are times it can be done, but you have to have a really good relationship with a banker. Your question suggests that avenue has been exhausted. You are looking for an investor, but you are offering something very speculative. Suppose an investor gives you 20K, what recourse does he have if you do not pay the terms of the loan? From what income will this be paid from? What event will trigger the capability to make a balloon payment? Now if you can find a really handy guy that really needs a place to live could you swap rent for repairs? Maybe. Perhaps you buy the materials, and he does the roof in exchange for 6 months worth of rent or whatever. If you approached me with this \"\"investment\"\", the thing that would raise a red flag is why don't you have 20K to do this yourself? If you don't how will you be able to make payments? For example of the items you mentioned: That is a weekend worth of work and some pretty inexpensive materials. Why does money need to be borrowed for this? A weekend worth of demo, and $500 worth of material and another weekend to build something serviceable for a rental. Why does money need to be borrowed for this? 2K? Why does money need to be borrowed for this? This can be expensive, but most roofing companies offer financing. Also doing some of the work yourself can save a ton of money. Demoing an old roof is typically about 1/3 of the roofing cost and is technically simple, but physically difficult. So besides the new roof, you could have a lot of your list solved for less than 3K and three weekends worth of work. You are attempting to change this into a rental, not the Taj Mahal.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "310df1360ddc30221c22f9e789f10fc1", "text": "This is how its done I am a certain french bank, aka sg I have some PIIGS debt, I can use this as collateral at face value (100), with the ECB in order to secure cash... Lets say I use 1mn of BTPS (italian debt), this has an MTM (clean) of 88. I use that 88 to get me 100 (1mn) of cash, from which I buy another BTPS, for (88), of which I use as collateral pledged to the ECB to get this, get another BTPS. So now I am long 3 BTPS, all pledged to the ECB and I have 36 in cash and I owe the ECB 300+r in 3 years. remember the yield on my shitty btps is a lot higher than the interest on the deposits. Secondly, I have three years, so I don't need to give a fuck about the mark to market on the notes (I could even buy a 2 year and n month note maturing just before). So I can make some free yield at the ECB's expense. Also this frees up 36 in cash, of which I can use to meet short term funding instead of tapping the bond market, this trade can be made infinitely, although the ECB might catch on. You can view it as getting a mortgage on your house to buy another house, then mortgaging house #2 to buy house #3, and so on.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cbc8773cb5a67bbf55cba1b513b1816b", "text": "\"Due to the zero percent interest rate on the Euro right now you won't find any investment giving you 5% which isn't equivalent to gambling. One of the few investment forms which still promises gains without unreasonable risks right now seems to be real estate, because real estate prices in German urban areas (not so in rural areas!) are growing a lot recently. One reason for that is in fact the low interest rate, because it makes it very cheap right now to take a loan and buy a home. This increased demand is driving up the prices. Note that you don't need to buy a property yourself to invest in real estate (20k in one of the larger cities of Germany will get you... maybe a cardboard box below a bridge?). You can invest your money in a real estate fund (\"\"Immobilienfond\"\"). You then don't own a specific property, you own a tiny fraction of a whole bunch of different properties. This spreads out the risk and allows you to invest exactly as much money as you want. However, most real estate funds do not allow you to sell in the first two years and require that you announce your sale one year in advance, so it's not a very liquid asset. Also, it is still a risky investment. Raising real estate prices might hint to a bubble which might burst eventually. Financial analysts have different opinions about this. But fact is, when the European Central Bank starts to take interest again, then the demand for real estate property will drop and so will the prices. When you are not sure what to do, ask your bank for investment advise. German banks are usually trustworthy in this regard.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "16edb3cbd1eeac5c4363c863762cfb5c", "text": "By no means is this a comprehensive list, but a few items to consider:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ec969f84e46d88c9a6711a69a1bb92a1", "text": "One simplest way is to to do Forex trading. You can do this by buying Foreign Currency Futures when you feel Rupee is going down or by selling those Futures when you feel Rupee will go up.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "995e19b8e36871967e758402f14743c4", "text": "That's all? What's the total shares outstanding? It's on thing is it's 100,000 and another if it's 10,000,000. What's the capitalization? If you don't know, check tech crunch and/or read the about section of your website. Having a bit of experience, my guess would be 10,000,000 (or much much more). Series A capitalization usually goes off at $1. If you are not in a management, sales, production or technology role .. you may not benefit much from the growth. So if you want to, watch your internal job postings and try to move up.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d17d924c5b82e1f761143e2f7cd919da", "text": "\"There is no numerical convention in finance that I have ever seen. If you look at statements or reports that measure growth when the starting value is negative or zero, you typically see \"\"n/a\"\" or \"\"-\"\" or \"\"*\"\" as the result. Any numerical result would be meaningless. Suppose you used 100% and another company had a legitimate 150% gain - where would the 100% change rank? What do my manager and investors expect to see? As a financial analyst - I would not want to see 100%. I would instead rather see something that indicates that the % change is meaningless. As an example, here's the WSJ documentation on change in Net Income: Net Income percent change is the change from the same period from a year ago. Percent change is not provided if either the latest period or the year-ago period contains a net loss. Thinking about it in another context: Yesterday you and your friend had no apples. Today you have 1 and your friend has 20. What percentage increase did you both have? Did you both have a 100% increase? How can you indicate that your friend had a larger \"\"increase\"\"? In that case (and in finance), the context needs to turn from a percentage increase to an absolute increase. A percentage increase is that scenario is meaningless.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "20d25eb66d23c393eb8804674b95aa13", "text": "\"The sentence is mathematically wrong and verbally unclear. Mathematically, you calculate the downwards percentage by So, it should be Verbally, the reporter should have written \"\"The stock is down by 25%\"\", not \"\"down by -25%\"\".\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "63446bd49d23b1872991316c108d9e6e", "text": "As NRI/PIO (Non-Resident Indian/Person of Indian Origin), the overseas income and transfers in foreign currency are exempt from Indian income taxes. However, the account in India has to be designated NRE or FCNR. There are three kind of accounts that an NRI can maintain Interest earned in NRE and FCNR accounts is exempt from income taxes. Interest earned in NRO accounts is not exempt from income taxes, in fact banks would withhold about 30% of interest (TDS). The exact tax liability would depend upon income generated in India and TDS could be applied towards that liability when the tax returns are filed. There are other implications also of designating the account as NRE or NRO. NRE accounts can only be funded via inward remittance of permitted foreign currency e.g. deposit USD/GBP. So proceeds like rental income, pension etc. that are generated in INR within India can't be deposited in this account. The money deposited in NRE account can grow tax free and can be converted back in any foreign currency freely. On the other hand NRO accounts can be funded through both inward remittance of permitted foreign currency or local income e.g. rental, pension etc. All the amount in this account is treated as Indian originated INR (even if remitted in foreign currency) and thus is taxed as any other bank account. The amount in this account is subject to the annual cap of convertibility of USD 1 million. Both NRE and NRO accounts are maintained in INR and can be Saving and Term Deposit. Any remittance made to these accounts in any foreign currency is converted to INR at the time of deposit and is maintained in INR. FCNR account are held in foreign currency and can only be Term Deposit. Official definitions: Accounts for Non Resident Indians (NRIs) and Persons of Indian Origin (PIOs)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "03e58b338037cb9b34f764a6061a51ca", "text": "You want the net expense of the surcharge minus the rewards to be no more than the interest that you would pay otherwise. Where t is the compounding period for the rate D expressed as a fraction of the overall period for D. So if D is an annual rate (not the APR, the simple rate), it would be expressed as something like 1/365 if compounded daily. That is the number of years in the compounding period. If a monthly rate or weekly compounding, that would change. And p is the number of such time periods in the grace period. So if the grace period were one month, this might be 30. Other variables are as used in the question, all expressed as percentages (which is why I'm dividing by 100). The D rate should be the simple rate, like 6% not the APR of 6.24% or whatever. Note that I'm saying <=. When equal, there is no financial advantage or disadvantage. You could choose either method for the same cost. Now, one method may be more annoying to implement, in which case you might add a fee for it on one side or the other of the equation. Or simply change the less than or equal to be just less than. I may be missing something that you should consider but I don't know. The problem is generic enough that pertinent details might be hidden. But hopefully this at least gives you a framework under which to consider it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "abf616c3123c474f8459d5c623759525", "text": "\"Capitalization rate and \"\"Net Profit margin\"\" are two different things. In Capitalization rate note that we are taking the \"\"total value\"\" in the denominator and in Net profit margin we are taking \"\"Revenue/Sales\"\". Capitalization Rate: Capitalization Rate = Yearly Income/Total Value For example (from Investopedia: ) if Stephane buys a property that will generate $125,000 per year and he pays $900,000 for it, the cap rate is: 125,000/900,000 = 13.89%. Net Profit margin: Net Profit margin = Net Profit/Revenue For example (from finance formulas): A company's income statement shows a net income of $1 million and operating revenues of $25 million. By applying the formula, $1 million divided by $25 million would result in a net profit margin of 4%. Although the formula is simplistic, applying the concept is important in that 4% of sales will result in after tax profit.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1276e1f81743f47e0912964e2eba3635", "text": "\"Your strategy fails to control risk. Your \"\"inversed crash\"\" is called a rally. And These kind of things often turn into bigger rallies because of short squeezes, when all the people that are shorting a stock are forced to close their stock because of margin calls - its not that shorts \"\"scramble\"\" to close their position, the broker AUTOMATICALLY closes your short positions with market orders and you are stuck with the loss. So no, your \"\"trick\"\" is not enough. There are better ways to profit from a bearish outlook.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ae6ff1f0e9dd2c7b31393e2e69748b1e", "text": "\"No, you capitalize all that and deduct as depreciation from the royalties. What it means is that you cannot deduct the expense when it is incurred, but only when you started receiving income that the expense was used to derive. This is similar to capitalizing building improvements which can only be deducted when you start getting rent, or capitalizing software development expenses which can only be deducted once you start selling/licensing the developed software. In the case of book writing - you capitalize the expenses and deduct them once you start receiving royalties. The period over which you deduct (the \"\"depreciation schedule\"\") depends on the type of the expense and the type of the income, so you better get a guidance from a licensed tax accountant (EA or CPA licensed in your State).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c07bbb5851ed11e9beafd9068dce5412", "text": "\"Outstanding principal balance is the amount you owe at any given time, not including the amount of interest you need to pay as soon as possible. The \"\"capitalized interest\"\" shown is consistent with an average of 13.5 months between when each dollar is borrowed and when the repayment period begins. Suppose you borrow the first half of the money on September 1, 2017 and the second half of the money on February 1, 2017 (5 months later). At that point, half the money has been accruing interest for 5 months. On January 1, 2018, half the money accrued interest for 16 months, and half the money accrued interest for 11 months. The lender now expects you to start repaying the loan, with the first payment due at the end of January 2018 or the beginning of February 2018. If you make the minimum payments on time, the lender expects you to make 120 monthly payments. The last monthly payment would be at the end of December 2027 or the beginning of January 2028. The lender (or the website) should provide details about the actual payment plan, grace periods, provisions for handling inability to pay due to unemployment, and other terms. In the United States, most installment loans pretend that (for purposes of calculating interest) every month has 30 days -- even February and July! Each month, 1/12 of the \"\"annual percentage rate\"\" (APR) is charged as interest. If you do the compounding, a 6.8 percent APR corresponds to (1 + 0.068 / 12)^12 - 1 = 7.016 percent \"\"annual percentage yield\"\" (APY). Also, the APR is understated. The 6.8 percent applies to the full balance (including the loan fees), even though the borrower only gets the amount minus the loan fees. The 6.8 percent rate is useful for doing calculations after the loan fees have been charged, though. These calculations include the capitalized interest and the monthly payment amounts. A true calculation of the APR would take the loan fees into account, and give a higher number than 6.8 percent. But the corrected APR would not be useful for calculating the capitalized interest, nor for calculating the monthly payment amounts.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f1a0bab43fe7bd385d1f5b7263d5969a", "text": "It's not compound interest. It is internal rate of return. If you have access to Excel look up the XIRR built-in function.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "20c9e9ae8c397b3bcdda3a75e314265a", "text": "You can write industry loss warrants. This is the closest thing I’ve found since I’ve been interested in this side of the ILS trade. Hedge funds and asset managers can do this. From what I understand it’s you selling the risk. Want to start a fund? 🤔", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4911f9a1e0f23dca3556083c61350494", "text": "\"Since you did not treat the house as a QBU, you have to use USD as your functional currency. To calculate capital gains, you need to calculate the USD value at the time of purchase using the exchange rate at the time of purchase and the USD value at the time of sale using the exchange rate at the time of sale. The capital gain / loss is then the difference between the two. This link describes it in more detail and provides some references: http://www.maximadvisors.com/2013/06/foreign-residence/ That link also discusses additional potential complications if you have a mortgage on the house. This link gives more detail on the court case referenced in the above link: http://www.uniset.ca/other/cs5/93F3d26.html The court cases references Rev. Rul 54-105. This link from the IRS has some details from that (https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-wd/0303021.pdf): Rev. Rul. 54-105, 1954-1 C.B. 12, states that for purposes of determining gain, the basis and selling price of property acquired by a U.S. citizen living in a foreign country should be expressed in United States dollars at the rates of exchange prevailing as of the dates of purchase and sale of the property, respectively. The text of this implies it is for U.S. citizen is living in a foreign country, but the court case makes it clear that it also applies in your scenario (house purchased while living abroad but now residing in the US): Appellants agree that the 453,374 pounds received for their residence should be translated into U.S. dollars at the $1.82 exchange rate prevailing at the date of sale. They argue, however, that the 343,147 pound adjusted cost basis of the residence, consisting of the 297,500 pound purchase price and the 45,647 pounds paid for capital improvements, likewise should be expressed in U.S. dollar terms as of the date of the sale. Appellants correctly state that, viewed “in the foreign currency in which it was transacted,” the purchase generated a 110,227 pound gain as of the date of the sale, which translates to approximately $200,000 at the $1.82 per pound exchange rate. ... However fair and reasonable their argument may be, it amounts to an untenable attempt to convert their “functional currency” from the U.S. dollar to the pound sterling. ... Under I.R.C. § 985(b)(1), use of a functional currency other than the U.S. dollar is restricted to qualified business units (\"\"QBU\"\"s). ... appellants correctly assert that their residence was purchased “for a pound-denominated value” while they were “living and working in a pound-denominated economy,” ... And since appellants concede that the purchase and sale of their residence was not carried out by a QBU, the district court properly rejected their plea to treat the pound as their functional currency.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "410f540b4ab654bf8bda42f5bd8443f1", "text": "If you make money in currency speculation (as in your example), that is a capital gain. A more complicated example is if you were to buy and then sell stocks on the mexican stock exchange. Your capital gain (or loss) would be the difference in value in US dollars of your stocks accounting for varying exchange rates. It's possible for the stocks to go down and for you to still have a capital gain, and vice versa.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7ec4040c3ac8334ab36c650435360cd4", "text": "\"As Dilip said, if you want actual concrete, based in tax law, answers, please add the country (and if applicable, state) where you pay income tax. Also, knowing what tax bracket you're in would help as well, although I certainly understand if you're not comfortable sharing that. So, assuming the US... If you're in the 10% or 15% tax bracket, then you're already not paying any federal tax on the $3k long term gain, so purposely taking losses is pointless, and given that there's probably a cost to taking the loss (commission, SEC fee), you'd be losing money by doing so. Also, you won't be able to buy back the loser for 31 days without having the loss postponed due to the wash sale that would result. State tax is another matter, but (going by the table in this article), even using the highest low end tax rate (Tennessee at 6%), the $50 loss would only save you $3, which is probably less than the commission to sell the loser, so again you'd be losing money. And if you're in a state with no state income tax, then the loss wouldn't save you anything on taxes at the state level, but of course you'll still be paying to be able to take the loss. On the high end, you'd be saving 20% federal tax and 13.3% state tax (using the highest high end tax state, California, and ignoring (because I don't know :-) ) whether they tax long-term capital gains at the same rate as regular income or not), you'd be saving $50 * (20% + 13.3%) = $50 * 33.3% = $16.65. So for taxes, you're looking at saving between nothing and $16.65. And then you have to subtract from that the cost to achieve the loss, so even on the high end (which means (assuming a single filer)) you're making >$1 million), you're only saving about $10, and you're probably actually losing money. So I personally don't think taking a $50 loss to try to decrease taxes makes sense. However, if you really meant $500 or $5000, then it might (although if you're in the 10-15% brackets in a no income tax state, even then it wouldn't). So the answer to your final question is, \"\"It depends.\"\" The only way to say for sure is, based on the country and state you're in, calculate what it will save you (if anything). As a general rule, you want to avoid letting the tax tail wag the dog. That is, your financial goal should be to end up with the most money, not to pay the least taxes. So while looking at the tax consequences of a transaction is a good idea, don't look at just the tax consequences, look at the consequences for your overall net worth.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ac1b913c39ab30f29679bf9167b2f2b5", "text": "Hope you figure it out. There wouldn't be a different RFR / discount rate because you're assuming a return on parked cash - that's what it's for. Since both situations would theoretically happen simultaneously you use the same rate unless you would do something different with cash in each instance.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "804d74d4c77d11d2c304b590073b6ea6", "text": "Credit unions are mutually-owned (i.e. customer owned) financial institutions that provide banking services. They take deposits from their members (customers) and loan them to other members. Members vote on a board of directors who manage operations. They are considered not-for-profit, but they pay interest on deposits. They get some preferential tax treatment and regulation and their deposits are insured by a separate organization if federally accredited. State-chartered credit unions don't have to maintain deposit insurance at all. Their charters specify who can join. They can be regionally based, employer based, or based on some other group with common interests. Regulators restrict them so that they don't interfere too much with banks. Otherwise their preferential tax and regulatory treatment would leave banks uncompetitive. Other organizations with similar limits have gone on to be competitive when the limits were released. For example, there used to be an insurance company just for government employees, the Government Employees Insurance Company. You may know it better as GEICO (yes, the one with the gecko advertisements). Now they offer life and auto insurance all over. Credit unions would like looser limitations (or no limitations at all), but not enough to give up their preferential tax treatment. Banks oppose looser limitations and have as much political clout as credit unions.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "21f7f766f152e5ee0c687d0465e8f0be", "text": "\"It's required by law. 12 USC 1759 (b) requires that membership in a credit union be limited to one or more groups with a \"\"common bond\"\", or to people within a particular geographic area. For lots more gory details on how this is interpreted and enforced, you can read the manual given to credit unions by the National Credit Union Administration, which is their regulatory agency.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "541401c6f2ad9acc4ce8a6c50c729c65", "text": "I've been with my credit union for 8 years now and I love it! I also don't deal with any of the problems you are talking about. I don't pay fees at any atm, at least not ultimately. If an atm charges me a fee then it's refunded to me at the end of the month. My online banking is very good, even have an app that allows me to remote deposit checks. Oh, and my loan interest rates are really decent too. While the banks are nickel and dimeing you to death my CU pays me every month and charges no fees.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ee8fccbcca3d7618962273ff5df1d43a", "text": "The model itself is fairly common for serving particular niche markets. A few other organizations which operate in similar setups: prepaid card providers such as NetSpend, GreenDot, AccountNow, etc; startups such as SmartyPig, PerkStreet, WePay, and HigherOne. Still, nobody else seems to be providing full-service online banking to mainstream customers the way we plan to. We plan to have much better security than most banks, which isn't hard given the current sorry state of online banking in the US. And having an intermediary who's looking out for your interests can be a good thing. David, my co-founder Josh lays out our launch plans and why we are invite-only in his latest post. In short, we made a decision to build our own call center rather than outsource it, and that limits how quickly we can bring people on.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "16aafea1672aa9af5d4a70a0f304d5fc", "text": "In the United States there are some specific savings accounts, some of which have rules from the federal government (education) and some that are setup by the bank/credit Union. Some institutions have a Christmas club, where money is set aside each week or each month and then you are given access at the end of the time period. Some institutions have accounts that pay CD rates but allow you to add funds during the period. They will have some flexibility in setting the time period. I have seen accounts that are designed to save up for a big purchase, or for a specific time period (summer vacation) Ask your bank. Or better yet look at a variety of banks websites for their rate sheet. That will explain all the different account types, rates, and rules. My credit Union allows a large number of sub accounts so that you don't have to commingle the funds.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "10702c2100c7c27f7e4648467503d729", "text": "I would have been tempted to dismiss your claim, but the data I found shows that you're correct. On the plus side, the growth rate in credit union market share is higher in New York than it is in California. While there is no question that bankers hate credit unions, I can't tell you why credit unions have a smaller market share in NY. Maybe the regulatory environment is part of it. Banks have a big lobby, and they pay a lot of taxes in NYC.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "db7024a10e95c39c93206a786964e63e", "text": "There are lots of credit unions that are insured by the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) through the National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund (NCUSIF) instead of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). Both cover individual accounts up to $250,000. If you are looking for non-trivial returns on your money, you should consider a brokerage account which is insured by the Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SPIC). In the case of SPIC insured accounts, what you are insured against is the failure of the broker (not against loss on your investments if you choose to invest poorly). SPIC insurance covers up to $500,000 in losses from an insolvent broker. You have already indicated your lack of interest in using other investments, but I am not aware of any non-insured accounts that offer higher interest than insured accounts. You have also indicated your lack of interest in investment advice, but it sounds like what you are looking for is offered by a stable value fund.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "75711be3db9794e3ec7fe7bc7e0195f3", "text": "Actually it seems you are not quite correct about the number of different banks in Canada. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_banks_and_credit_unions_in_Canada According to this link there are 82-86 banks in Canada plus credit unions. This may still be lower than what would correspond to the number of banks in the US, scaled for canadian population. One further reason not mentioned before could be that the population density in Canada outside of the metropolitan areas could be lower than in the US, leaving to few small towns large enough (10,000+ (a guess corrected due to comment)) to support a bank.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e0540931e47342a4bd7e2110805f6c79", "text": "For an American it nearly impossible to open a Swiss bank account. Even a Swiss person want to open a bank account, we have to fill out a document, which asks us if we have a greencard or other relationships with the united states. Some Swiss banks have transferred the money of Americans to Singapore to protect their clients. So you see, the Swiss banks do very much for their clients. And yes, we don't ask very much about money ;) And we are a politically neutral country, but we like the United States more than Russia and of course we have enemies, like the ISIS", "title": "" }, { "docid": "aaaa8fcea2cbfa583bb92f4848b54efa", "text": "I would strongly suggest you select an answer: all the above two cover everything I can possibly recommend, but perhaps my perspective as a person who was exactly in your shoes a year ago might appeal to you more. My first bank was Chase, and they usually give out a free checking account to students that come with leaves of 100 checks. Unfortunately, I was 24 at that time, and the max possible age to qualify was 23 or 21. Paying $25 for any number of checks was a big deal for me as I had no job, and transportation and rent was costing me $1k/month anyways. I came here and asked questions: lots of them. MrChrister, God bless his soul, recommended credit unions to me. I never knew they existed. A year later, I am a proud member of 3 CUs: I recommend Alliant, DCU and SchoolsFirst: I am their member and very proud of it!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "df4baaa5568774bea88b5aba32f7b7d7", "text": "First, if you live in/around a reasonably populated urban area, and you're in the United States, I can't see why you would choose to bank with Chase, B of A, or another large commercial bank. I think you would be much better served by banking at a reasonably large credit union. There are many differences between banks and credit unions, but in a nutshell, credit unions are owned by the members, and operate primarily to provide benefits to their members, whereas a bank is owned by the shareholders, and operates primarily to make profits for the shareholders (not to benefit the customers). The banking industry absolutely hates the credit unions, so if you've ever been nickeled-and-dimed with this fee and that charge by your bank, I have to ask why you're still banking with a company that irritates you and/or actively tries to screw you out of your money? I live in California, and I've banked at credit unions almost exclusively since I started working nearly 30 years ago. Every time I've strayed and started banking at a for-profit bank, I've regretted it. For example, a few years ago I opened a checking account at a now-defunct bank (WaMu) just for online use: eBay and so forth. It was a free checking account. When Chase bought WaMu, the account became a Chase account, and it seemed that every other statement brought new fees, new restrictions, and so forth. I finally closed it when they imposed some stupid fee for not carrying enough of a balance. I found out by logging in to their Web site and seeing a balance of zero dollars; they had imposed the fee a few statements back, and I had missed it, so they kept debiting my account until it was empty. At this point, I do about 90% of my banking at a fairly large credit union. I have a mortgage with a big bank, but that was out of my hands, as the lender/originator sold the mortgage and I had no say in the matter. My credit union has a highly functional Web site, permits me to download my account activity to Quicken, and even has mobile apps which allow me to deposit a check by taking a picture of it, or check my account activity, etc. They (my credit union) are part of a network of other credit unions, so as long as I am using a network ATM, I never pay a fee. In sum, I can't see any reason to go with a bank. Regarding checks, I write a small number of checks per year, but I recently needed to reorder them. My credit union refers members directly to Harland-Clarke, a major-league player in the check printing business. Four boxes of security checks was around $130 plus shipping, which is not small money. However, I was able to order the very same checks via Costco for less than half that amount. Costco refers members to a check printing service, which is a front/subsidiary of Harland-Clarke, and using a promo code, plus the discount given for my Costco membership, I got four boxes of security checks shipped to me for less than $54. My advice would be to look around. If you're a Costco member, use their check printing service. Wal*mart offers a similar service to anyone, as does Sam's Club, and you can search around to find other similar services. Bottom line, if you order your checks via your bank or credit union, chances are you will pay full retail. Shop around, and save a bit. I've not opened a new account at a credit union in some time, but I would not be surprised if a credit union offered a free box of checks when you open a new account with them.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0e9095fc9405eb42ed89002ef76ec184", "text": "The United Services Automobile Association has a funny legal structure: it's not a corporation and has no shareholders. Policyholders and account holders are paid any profits. In that respect, it functions very much like a credit union; technically, it's structured as a Texas-based and Texas Department of Insurance regulated unincorporated reciprocal inter-insurance exchange and Fortune 500 financial services company offering banking, investing, and insurance to people and families that serve, or served, in the United States military. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USAA Normally a company like this is a corporation so that its owners can benefit from limited liability: otherwise, if the company loses millions or billions, any one of the individual owners / members could be held liable for paying those millions and billions! However, the Texas laws which govern them as a Texas-based inter-insurance exchange also serve to limit the liability of members. The banking services are provided by the USAA Federal Savings Bank, which is structured as a (drumroll) federal savings bank. They also own a couple of other random businesses.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c47466f7880e9e6b6d3a19c680ce234d", "text": "Bank and most Credit Union deposit accounts (including CDs) are guaranteed by the Federal government by the FDIC and NCUA, respectively. Some state-chartered credit unions use private insurance, you'll want to be careful about storing lots of money in those institutions.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "436a77a7a99c6137a6a3c3394e5508b9", "text": "I don't have an account with either of those CUs, but I do have membership at 2 different CUs. If they accept credit card payments online via transfer from another institution, there's no reason to move your money, unless there are other benefits (higher interest rates). All the CUs would likely require is membership ($5 deposit minimum?). If you were to get a card through Chase or Capital One, you wouldn't be expected to open a checking/savings account with them and transition over to those accounts.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6ec0d1a98960a242e0e709bf32c09507", "text": "The problem with that is that banks create the money they lend, thus they are able to lend far more. Individuals can only lend money that has already been created, and are at a big disadvantage. If it weren't for the federal reserve money printing machine, it would be a viable lending scheme.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "93afe23fda5c4591decbdc80083421e6", "text": "\"Yeah the credit union near me sucks too. Short hours, long lines and impossible parking to go with the subpar online banking and lack of ATMs. Just because the sign reads \"\"credit union\"\" doesn't mean it's a good business. Not all credit unions are created equally.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ddd84a775f7704b7e5b5eb6fa60d6209", "text": "Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns failed before there ever was such a thing as a Systemically Important Financial Institution (SIFI). OP's article and the study that it is based on are referring quite specifically to SIFI's, not every bank in American history.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "4e17ade0793be8969406bb0a2d23fa1e", "text": "Robinhood seems interesting. Some say it's a gimmicky site with a nice UI not an investing or trading platform. From investopedia: 1. For now, the app stays afloat for mainly two reasons. First, the business itself is extremely lean: no physical locations, a small staff, no massive public relations campaigns and only one operating system platform to maintain. Robinhood also generates interest off of unused cash deposits from user accounts according to the Federal Funds rate. 2. Second, venture capitalists such as Index Ventures, Ribbit Capital, Google Ventures, Andreessen Horowitz, Social Leverage,and “many others” have invested more than $16 million in the app. 3. According to Barron’s, Robinhood plans to implement margin trading in 2015, eventually charging 3.5% interest for the service. E*Trade charges 8.44% for accounts under $25,000. Phone assisted trading will also be available at $10 per trade in the future. 4. Originally, Robinhood planned to make money off of order flows – a common tactic used by discount brokerages in the 1990s to generate revenue. According to the company's FAQ, Robinhood backpedaled on the idea because it executes orders through a clearing partner and, as a result, receives little to no payment for order flow. The company is willing to return to its original plan in the future if it receives order flows directly or begins to generate a lot of revenue from them.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d1b408b65407c57eb00dd74769540cce", "text": "\"Yes, there is a lot they are leaving out, and I would be extremely skeptical of them because of the \"\"reasons\"\" they give for being able to charge $0 commissions. Their reasons are that they don't have physical locations and high overhead costs, the reality is that they are burning venture capital on exchange fees until they actually start charging everyone they suckered into opening accounts. They also get paid by exchanges when users provide liquidity. These are called trade rebates in the maker-taker model. They will start offering margin accounts and charging interest. They are [likely] selling trade data to high frequency trading firms that then fill your stock trades at worse prices (Robinhood users are notorious for complaining about the fills). They may well be able to keep commissions low, as that has been a race to the bottom for a long time. But if they were doing their users any actual favors, then they would be also paying users the rebates that exchanges pay them for liquidity. Robinhood isn't doing anything unique as all brokers do what I mentioned along with charging commissions, and it is actually amazing their sales pitch \"\"$0 commissions because we are just a mobile app lol\"\" was enough for their customers. They are just being disingenuous.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6bc45537dbbaa8efca1e2a36ecd28420", "text": "\"Disclosure: I don't have an iPhone, so I don't use RobinHood. That being said, I have a less \"\"they're-out-to-get-ya\"\" view of what they're doing. As a small business owner (2 businesses), employees cost the most. If you can create a solid business with few (or no) employees and let robots run it, you will drastically reduce your costs. Joe Polish said it similarly with sales letters, something along the lines of they never complain about a headache, need to take a year off to discover themself, or just need a personal day. Robots are the same; they do not have human limits. Most simple trading can be done and maintained by well written code and AI, there's very little need for humans to do anything other than build it. Think about the efficiency of bitcoin versus all the central banks combined; how many people are employed by central banks? Robinhood states that they are using technology in these ways to minimize costs and they're using a system that doesn't need physical branches (this doesn't mean they will never have them, just that they don't need them). Robinhood does not indicate that they allow everything to happen for free; only stock trading. I worked for a large trading firm once and observed that stock trading wasn't the bulk of where they made their money anyway; trading options, futures, index funds, etc are where the big money was and Robinhood says nothing about those being free. Like the CQM mentioned too, they'll be charging for margin as well. In a way, the individual stock trader is dead; many people - including this forum - prefer index funds, so more than likely, Robinhood will strike up a deal with an index fund company or create their own (this is just easy, passive income with an expense ratio). In this category, the markets are their playground, but they do need to attract enough people to their platform, thus free stock trading is a good way to do it. As for selling your information for advertising, that is always a possibility, but they have quite a few other options that would be good for most investors (index funds, affiliating with financial fund companies, etc) where they can start before ever needing to dip their toe in selling information. This isn't to say they won't do it, but that there are few other options they have. The major concern I have for Robinhood is ongoing security. Just building it and letting it run kind of assumes that there won't be major compromises in the future and as AI evolves, superior AI might be able to crush older AI.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "67f337555c55ec7847384688e0b2b8d8", "text": "Charging very high prices for additional standard services: See Commission & Fees: https://brokerage-static.s3.amazonaws.com/assets/robinhood/legal/RHF%20Retail%20Commisions%20and%20Fees%20Schedule.pdf Link is down in the footer, to the left...", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "160028dad1a8e6ec1b09f8395175d164", "text": "In my experience they charge you coming and going. For example, if a brokerage firm is advertising that their commissions are only $7/trade, then that means you pay money to buy the stock, plus $7 to them, and later on if you want to sell that stock you must pay $7 to get out of the deal. So, if you want to make any money on a stock (say, priced at $10) you would have to sell it at a price above $10+$7+$7=$24. That kind of sale could take a few years to turn a profit. However, with flat-rate fees like that it is advantageous to buy in bulk.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "19c215406af14db05a1acffe9423ae75", "text": "Nothing. Stockbrokers set up nominee accounts, in which they hold shares on behalf of individual investors. Investors are still the legal owners of the shares but their names do not appear on the company’s share register. Nominee accounts are ring-fenced from brokers’ other activities so they are financially secure.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c224346604b8d4e798f6453fcb10053b", "text": "stocks represent ownership in a company. their price can go up or down depending on how much profit the company makes (or is expected to make). stocks owners are sometimes paid money by the company if the company has extra cash. these payments are called dividends. bonds represent a debt that a company owes. when you buy a bond, then the company owes that debt to you. typically, the company will pay a small amount of money on a regular basis to the bond owner, then a large lump some at some point in the future. assuming the company does not file bankrupcy, and you keep the bond until it becomes worthless, then you know exactly how much money you will get from buying a bond. because bonds have a fixed payout (assuming no bankrupcy), they tend to have lower average returns. on the other hand, while stocks have a higher average return, some stocks never return any money. in the usa, stocks and bonds can be purchased through a brokerage account. examples are etrade, tradeking, or robinhood.com. before purchasing stocks or bonds, you should probably learn a great deal more about other investment concepts such as: diversification, volatility, interest rates, inflation risk, capital gains taxes, (in the usa: ira's, 401k's, the mortgage interest deduction). at the very least, you will need to decide if you want to buy stocks inside an ira or in a regular brokerage account. you will also probably want to buy a low-expense ration etf (e.g. an index fund etf) unless you feel confident in some other choice.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9e1d0c6ec35cad5fe9aa6d894c55fef5", "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.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4460aa5eb5a249d9056dd222a6242b4f", "text": "\"Some rich people want to make money without working. So they give their money to a company like Apollo Global Management, and then Apollo Global Management takes the money that they were given and decides how they will turn that money into more money, which they can give back to the person who gave it to them. That money they give back is called return, or \"\"return on investment.\"\" That's how the person who gave the money, makes money -- from return on investment. The company's only real purpose is to make money with the money you give them. The company takes the money and sometimes they let other companies borrow that money, either for a long period of time or short period of time. They have different things called stocks, bonds, commodities and other things that they trade back and forth, and they only hope that they will make money doing it. It is sort of like they are going to work and playing the lottery every day, except, they do a lot of math to try and figure out how they can win the money from other companies as quick as possible. Instead of buying lotto tickets, they are buying those things I mentioned, stocks, bonds, commodities, and other things. By buying or selling these things, they are betting that a company will either make or lose money. It is basically like a game, with you and other people and companies, all as players. You are betting that the other players in the game will either make or lose money, based on what you see other players doing. As a player, you can win big or small, and you can lose big or small. There's a thing called the SEC. To play the game, you have to follow the rules that the SEC makes, or you will end up in jail! They are like the police, they are looking for people who do bad things. When you are older, you can make a lot of money if you work at a company like Apollo, but you can make more money than a lottery winner if you own a company yourself like Apollo.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2946b37fe124978cc75eb71e8f0a2c12", "text": "\"A simple way to ask the question might be to say \"\"why can't I just use the same trick with my own shares to make money on the way down? Why is borrowing someone else's shares necessary to make the concept a viable one? Why isn't it just the inverse of 'going long'?\"\" A simple way to think about it is this: to make money by trading something, you must buy it for less than you sell it for. This applies to stocks like anything else. If you believe the price will go up, then you can buy them first and sell them later for a higher price. But if you believe the price will go down, the only way to buy low and sell high is to sell first and buy later. If you buy the stock and it goes down, any sale you make will lose you money. I'm still not sure I fully understand the point of your example, but one thing to note is that in both cases (i.e., whether you buy the share back at the end or not), you lost money. You say that you \"\"made $5 on the share price dropping\"\", but that isn't true at all: you can see in your example that your final account balance is negative in both cases. You paid $20 for the shares but only got $15 back; you lost $5 (or, in the other version of your example, paid $20 and got back $5 plus the depreciated shares). If you had bought the shares for $20 and sold them for, say, $25, then your account would end up with a positive $5 balance; that is what a gain would look like. But you can't achieve that if you buy the shares for $20 and later sell them for less. At a guess, you seem to be confusing the concept of making a profit with the concept of cutting your losses. It is true that if you buy the shares for $20 and sell them for $15, you lose only $5, whereas if you buy them for $20 and sell for $10, you lose the larger amount of $10. But those are both losses. Selling \"\"early\"\" as the price goes down doesn't make you any money; it just stops you from losing more money than you would if you sold later.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "03d36bcfc0701893351e08d872295887", "text": "Some good answers already, but let me add a TL:DR version. Brokers work like a special type of bank account where you can deposit or withdraw money. The major difference is that they also give you the ability to buy/sell investments with the money in your account which you can do by either calling them or using their website. Important: Many investments you will make through a broker(e.g. stocks) are not insured against losing value like the money in your bank account.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "71399cba538d2d34baf47cb9990fb45a", "text": "\"Also, in the next sentence, what is buyers commission? Is it referring to the share holder? Or potential share holder? And why does the buyer get commission? The buyer doesn't get a commission. The buyer pays a commission. So normally a buyer would say, \"\"I want to buy a hundred shares at $20.\"\" The broker would then charge the buyer a commission. Assuming 4%, the commission would be So the total cost to the buyer is $2080 and the seller receives $2000. The buyer paid a commission of $80 as the buyer's commission. In the case of an IPO, the seller often pays the commission. So the buyer might pay $2000 for a hundred shares which have a 7% commission. The brokering agent (or agents may share) pockets a commission of $140. Total paid to the seller is $1860. Some might argue that the buyer pays either way, as the seller receives money in the transaction. That's a reasonable outlook. A better way to say this might be that typical trades bill the buyer directly for commission while IPO purchases bill the seller. In the typical trade, the buyer negotiates the commission with the broker. In an IPO, the seller does (with the underwriter). Another issue with an IPO is that there are more parties getting commission than just one. As a general rule, you still call your broker to purchase the stock. The broker still expects a commission. But the IPO underwriter also expects a commission. So the 7% commission might be split between the IPO underwriter (works for the selling company) and the broker (works for the buyer). The broker has more work to do than normal. They have to put in the buyer's purchase request and manage the price negotiation. In most purchases, you just say something like \"\"I want to offer $20 a share\"\" or \"\"I want to purchase at the market price.\"\" In an IPO, they may increase the price, asking for $25 a share. And they may do that multiple times. Your broker has to come back to you each time and get a new authorization at the higher price. And you still might not get the number of shares that you requested. Beyond all this, you may still be better off buying an IPO than waiting until the next day. Sure, you pay more commission, but you also may be buying at a lower price. If the IPO price is $20 but the price climbs to $30, you would have been better off paying the IPO price even with the higher commission. However, if the IPO price is $20 and the price falls to $19.20, you'd be better off buying at $19.20 after the IPO. Even though in that case, you'd pay the 4% commission on top of the $19.20, so about $19.97. I think that the overall point of the passage is that the IPO underwriter makes the most money by convincing you to pay as high an IPO price as possible. And once they do that, they're out of the picture. Your broker will still be your broker later. So the IPO underwriter has a lot of incentive to encourage you to participate in the IPO instead of waiting until the next day. The broker doesn't care much either way. They want you to buy and sell something. The IPO or something else. They don't care much as to what. The underwriter may overprice the stock, as that maximizes their return. If they can convince enough people to overpay, they don't care that the stock falls the day after that. All their marketing effort is to try to achieve that result. They want you to believe that your $20 purchase will go up to $30 the next day. But it might not. These numbers may not be accurate. Obviously the $20 stock price is made up. But the 4% and 7% numbers may also be inaccurate. Modern online brokers are very competitive and may charge a flat fee rather than a percentage. The book may be giving you older numbers that were correct in 1983 (or whatever year). The buyer's commission could also be lower than 4%, as the seller also may be charged a commission. If each pays 2%, that's about 4% total but split between a buyer's commission and a seller's commission.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4b7262dc2ce7e8c5af516b49b75cc613", "text": "\"There are a few people that do this for a living. They are called \"\"market makers\"\" or \"\"specialists\"\" in a particular stock. First of all, this requires a lot of capital. You can get burned on a few trades, a process known as \"\"gambler's ruin,\"\" but if you have enough capital to weather the storm, you can make money. Second, you have to be \"\"licensed\"\" by the stock market authorities, because you need to have stock market trading experience and other credentials. Third, you are not allowed to buy and sell at will. In order to do your job, you have to \"\"balance the boat,\"\" that is buy, when others are selling, and sell, when others are buying, in order to keep the market moving in two directions. It's a tough job that requires a lot of experience, plus a license, but a few people can make a living doing this.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "769d27c645763928c956ad9de86d019b", "text": "Prop (proprietary) traders trade using huge amounts of a bank's money (i.e. other people's money) so the reason why they have such low commissions (and they certainly do) is that the firms for which they work negotiate low commissions as the quantities and volumes (as they also trade very frequently) will be high and so the total commission will be very high. There is no such thing as a prop trading account unless you are a big bank with a very large bank roll (tens of millions of USD) so you cannot open one to enjoy those benefits unless you have enough money that you can negotiate your commission with brokers. 25k CAD is definitely not enough money to even start a conversation about those sorts of commissions. note: prop traders are generally banned from trading intraday with their own money by their employers and the law as it is a massive conflict of interests. Those who do and get caught face lengthy prison sentences.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8f55019d19ab0b8c5d5fb5b5b7d2960a", "text": "I feel like the author doesn't have a clear message. On the one hand he is saying that Robinhood users should be long-term passive investors, the he turns around and criticizes it for not completing trades fast enough and having too much slippage. I think that we need to be very specific about our goals. If the goal is to make as much money as possible, sure, Robinhood is a poor tool. However, the vast majority of people are only at the point that they need to save more. If then our goal is to get more people to save more then it is a great tool. It lowers barriors and makes it fun. More importantly, the limits of Robinhood are obvious to anyone who starts to take the next step and increase their gains.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1410bf64e236bfa3179df8388872d022", "text": "Most of stock trading occurs on what is called a secondary market. For example, Microsoft is traded on NASDAQ, which is a stock exchange. An analogy that can be made is that of selling a used car. When you sell a used car to a third person, the maker of your car is unaffected by this transaction and the same goes for stock trading. Still within the same analogy, when the car is first sold, money goes directly to the maker (actually more complicated than that but good enough for our purposes). In the case of stock trading, this is called an Initial Public Offering (IPO) / Seasoned Public Offering (SPO), for most purposes. What this means is that a drop of value on a secondary market does not directly affect earning potential. Let me add some nuance to this. Say this drop from 20$ to 10$ is permanent and this company needs to finance itself through equity (stock) in the future. It is likely that it would not be able to obtain as much financing in this matter and would either 1) have to rely more on debt and raise its cost of capital or 2) obtain less financing overall. This could potentially affect earnings through less cash available from financing. One last note: in any case, financing does not affect earnings except through cost of capital (i.e. interest paid) because it is neither revenue nor expense. Financing obtained from debt increases assets (cash) and liabilities (debt) and financing obtained from stock issuance increases assets (cash) and shareholder equity.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f29816a5c7091d03a3667b83afe982fe", "text": "Upselling you is how they make money. That's the price of the free content. Test their recommendations. Pretend to buy the stocks they say. How do they do? Do they ever say to sell the stocks after their buy recommendations? There are lots and lots of opinions out there. I doubt people really hear about the good ones because (a) the good ones have paid newsletters and/or (b) the good ones aren't telling a soul because they're absolutely cleaning it up. Warren Buffett doesn't announce his intentions. He's been buying for a while before anyone finds out.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bada6c854343fb7d5ca949eb55eca134", "text": "\"The answer posted by Kirill Fuchs is incorrect according to my series 65 text book and practice question answers. The everyday investor buys at the ask and sells at the bid but the market maker does the opposite. THE MARKET MAKER \"\"BUYS AT THE BID AND SELLS AT THE ASK\"\", he makes a profit form the spread. I have posted a quiz question and the answer created by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA). To fill a customer buy order for 800 WXYZ shares, your firm requests a quote from a market maker. The response is \"\"bid 15, ask 15.25.\"\" If the order is placed, the market maker must sell: A) 800 shares at $15.25 per share. B) 800 shares at $15 per share. C) 100 shares at $15.25 per share. D) 800 shares at no more than $15 per share. Your answer, sell 800 shares at $15.25 per share., was correct!. A market maker is responsible for honoring a firm quote. If no size is requested by the inquiring trader, a quote is firm for 100 shares. In this example, the trader requested an 800-share quote, so the market maker is responsible for selling 8 round lots of 100 shares at the ask price of $15.25 per share.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "747cc718e1016927fc48bf0216b35c05", "text": "As others have said, it depends on the brokerage firm. My broker is Scottrade. With Scottrade the commission is assessed and applied the moment the order is filled. If I buy 100 shares of XYZ at $10 a share then Scottrade will immediately deduct $1007.02 out of my account. They add the commission and fees to the buy transaction. On a sale transaction they subtract the commission and fees from the resulting money. So if I sell 100 shares of XYZ at $11 a share I will get 1,092.98 put into my account, which I can use three business days later.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "45d30b6b15c3c64709ec89acf0a3ee0a", "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.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "962ea288290efde34f5522ca7d5171a9", "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.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "36f74a656015e3e432d501b97ff69860", "text": "Not really. The lender is not buying the stock back at a lower price. Remember, he already owns it, so he need not buy it again. The person losing is the one from whom the short seller buys back the stock, provided that person bought the stock at higher price. So if B borrowed from A(lender) and sold it to C, and later B purchased it back from C at a lower price, then B made profit, C made loss and A made nothing .", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "4b4d3454995bfc832e60836cefe5af3c", "text": "\"Am I getting it right that in India in terms of short selling in F&O market its what in the rest of the world is called naked short and you actually make promise to depositary that you will deliver that security you sold on settlement without actually owning the security or going through SLB mechanism? In Future and Options; there is no concept of short selling. You buy a future for a security / index. On the settlement day; the exchange determines the settlement price. The trade is closed in cash. i.e. Based on the settlement price, you [and the other party] will either get money [other party looses money] or you loose money [other party gets the money]. Similarly for Options; on expiry, the all \"\"In Money\"\" [or At Money] Options are settled in cash and you are credit with funds [the option writer is debited with funds]. If the option is \"\"out of money\"\" it expires and you loose the premium you paid to exercise the option.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a44daf7196d15483dc2a93284ac04b00", "text": "\"Who are the losers going to be? If you can tell me for certain which firms will do worst in a bear market and can time it so that this information is not already priced into the market then you can make money. If not don't try. In a bull market stocks tend to act \"\"normally\"\" with established patterns such as correlations acting as expected and stocks more or less pricing to their fundamentals. In a bear market fear tends to overrule all of those things. You get large drops on relatively minor bad news and modest rallies on even the best news which results in stocks being undervalued against their fundamentals. In the crash itself it is quite easy to make money shorting. In an environment where stocks are undervalued, such as a bear market, you run the risk that your short, no matter how sure you are that the stock will fall, is seen as being undervalued and will rise. In fact your selling of a \"\"losing\"\" stock might cause it to hit levels where value investors already have limits set. This could bring a LOT of buyers into the market. Due to the fact that correlations break down creating portfolios with the correct risk level, which is what funds are required to do not only by their contracts but also by law to an extent, is extremely difficult. Risk management (keeping all kinds to within certain bounds) is one of the most difficult parts of a manager's job and is even difficult in abnormal market conditions. In the long run (definitions may vary) stock prices in general go up (for those companies who aren't bankrupted at least) so shorting in a bear market is not a long term strategy either and will not produce long term returns on capital. In addition to this risk you run the risk that your counterparty (such as Lehman brothers?) will file for bankruptcy and you won't be able to cover the position before the lender wants you to repay their stock to them landing you in even more problems.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "99ba8e9b3a8e247eec12203c5dccd25d", "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.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "89a27825da28e95937d83b40b8dd83e0", "text": "\"For some studies on why investors make the decisions they do, check out For a more readable, though less rigorous, look at it, also consider Kahneman's recent book, \"\"Thinking, Fast and Slow\"\", which includes the two companion papers written with Tversky on prospect theory. In certain segments (mostly trading) of the investing industry, it is true that something like 90% of investors lose money. But only in certain narrow segments (and most folks would rightly want traders to be counted as a separate beast than an 'investor'). In most segments, it's not true that most investors lose money, but it still is true that most investors exhibit consistent biases that allow for mispricing. I think that understanding the heuristics and biases approach to economics is critical, both because it helps you understand why there are inefficiencies, and also because it helps you understand that quantitative, principled investing is not voodoo black magic; it's simply applying mathematics for the normative part and experimental observations for the descriptive part to yield a business strategy, much like any other way of making money.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "766ba9a0a0e7c1d6325b6344da388fe8", "text": "If you buy a stock and it goes up, you can sell it and make money. But if you buy a stock and it goes down, you can lose money.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6e6390bc4bd318df463271b969ab2ba9", "text": "This has never really adequately explained it for me, and I've tried reading up on it all over the place. For a long time I thought that in a trade, the market maker pockets the spread *for that trade*, but that's not the case. The only sensible explanation I've found (which I'm not going to give in full...) is that the market maker will provide liquidity by buying and selling trades they have no actual view on (short or long), and if the spread is higher, that contributes directly to the amount they make over time when they open and close positions they've made. It would be great to see a single definitive example somewhere that shows how a market maker makes money.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b4230bc9749d09b9fad10599e79b40ef", "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.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9be77ec1a7a6711cd9e39215f344a6e9", "text": "\"There are situations where you can be forced to cover a position, particular when \"\"Reg SHO\"\" (\"\"regulation sho\"\") is activated. Reg SHO is intended to make naked short sellers cover their position, it is to prevent abusive failure to delivers, where someone goes short without borrowing someone else's shares. Naked shorting isn't a violation of federal securities laws but it becomes an accounting problem when multiple people have claims to the same underlying assets. (I've seen companies that had 120% of their shares sold short, too funny, FWIW the market was correct as the company was worth nothing.) You can be naked short without knowing it. So there can be times when you will be forced to cover. Other people being forced to cover can result in a short squeeze. A risk. The other downside is that you have to pay interest on your borrowings. You also have to pay the dividends to the owner of the shares, if applicable. In shorter time frames these are negligible, but in longer time frames, such as closer to a year or longer, these really add up. Let alone the costs of the market going in the opposite direction, and the commissions.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "35d418477f6f1ff8bf0e3e14b2082fe6", "text": "Day traders see a dip, buy stocks, then sell them 4 mins later when the value climbed to a small peak. What value is created? Is the company better off from that trade? The stocks were already outside of company hands, so the trade doesn't affect them at all. You've just received money from others for no contribution to society. A common scenario is a younger business having a great idea but not enough capital funds to actually get the business going. So, investors buy shares which they can sell later on at a higher value. The investor gets value from the shares increasing over time, but the business also gets value of receiving money to build the business.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "def659aae548de1cffe0daa87eeb0196", "text": "I believe that it's not possible for the public to know what shares are being exchanged as shorts because broker-dealers (not the exchanges) handle the shorting arrangements. I don't think exchanges can even tell the difference between a person selling a share that belongs to her vs. a share that she's just borrowing. (There are SEC regulations requiring some traders to declare that trades are shorts, but (a) I don't think this applies to all traders, (b) it only applies to the sells, and (c) this information isn't public.) That being said, you can view the short interest in a symbol using any of a number of tools, such as Nasdaq's here. This is often cited as an indicator similar to what you proposed, though I don't know how helpful it would be from an intra-day perspective.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a094c5a11277c21d3ef4c7708548e105", "text": "\"Take the case where a stock has just two owners, A and B, both at $10. One of them sells his shares to C, at $11. Now B has made $1 in profit but is no longer an owner of the stock. A hasn't sold anything but his shares are worth 10% more due to the last traded price printed. C has bought shares at $11 and the price is $11, so technically he hasn't lost any money. In a larger market, there are winners and losers every day on a single stock, but they may not remain owners of a stock. There could be days in which those that remain owners are all winners - say when a stock goes up to an all time high and all those that are currently owners have an average buy price lower than the last traded price. And the reverse applies too. It is of course more complicated. Say you own a stock and let someone else \"\"borrow\"\" it for a short-selling opportunity (he sells it in the market). For each uptick in price, you win, the short seller loses, and the guy he sold it to also wins. A person that has a covered call on a stock is not a winner beyond a point. And so on.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5f505ea025ad3b724d57c8c6297ce71a", "text": "When you buy a stock, the worst case scenario is that it drops to 0. Therefore, the most you can lose when buying a stock is 100% of your investment. When you short a stock, however, there's no limit on how high the stock can go. If you short a stock at 10, and it goes up to 30, then you've lost 200% on your investment. Therefore shorting stocks is riskier than buying stocks, since you can lose more than 100% of your investment when shorting. because the price might go up, but it will never be as big of a change as a regular price drop i suppose... That is not true. Stocks can sometimes go up significantly (50-100% or more) in a very short amount of time on a positive news release (such as an earnings or a buyout announcement). A famous example occurred in 2008, when Volkswagen stock quintupled (went up 400%) in less than 2 days on some corporate news: Porsche, for some reason, wants to control Volkswagen, and by building up its stake has driven up the price. Hedge funds, figuring the share price would fall as soon as Porsche got control and stopped buying, sold a lot of VW shares short. Then last weekend, Porsche disclosed that it owned 42.6 percent of the stock and had acquired options for another 31.5 percent. It said it wanted to go to 75 percent. The result: instant short-squeeze. The German state of Lower Saxony owns a 20 percent stake in VW, which it said it would not sell. That left precious few shares available for anyone else. The shorts scrambled to cover, and the price leaped from about €200, or about $265, to above €1,000.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "02d2b13e35b38e12d934800189817837", "text": "\"Below is just a little information on short selling from my small unique book \"\"The small stock trader\"\": Short selling is an advanced stock trading tool with unique risks and rewards. It is primarily a short-term trading strategy of a technical nature, mostly done by small stock traders, market makers, and hedge funds. Most small stock traders mainly use short selling as a short-term speculation tool when they feel the stock price is a bit overvalued. Most long-term short positions are taken by fundamental-oriented long/short equity hedge funds that have identified some major weaknesses in the company. There a few things you should consider before shorting stocks: Despite all the mystique and blame surrounding short selling, especially during bear markets, I personally think regular short selling, not naked short selling, has a more positive impact on the stock market, as: Lastly, small stock traders should not expect to make significant profits by short selling, as even most of the great stock traders (Jesse Livermore, Bernard Baruch, Gerald Loeb, Nicolas Darvas, William O’Neil, and Steven Cohen,) have hardly made significant money from their shorts. it is safe to say that odds are stacked against short sellers. Over the last century or so, Western large caps have returned an annual average of between 8 and 10 percent while the returns of small caps have been slightly higher. I hope the above little information from my small unique book was a little helpful! Mika (author of \"\"The small stock trader\"\")\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "55cb5b9ae06e3904e268112a5940bf42", "text": "\"My take on this is that with any short-selling contract you are engaging in, at a specified time in the future you will need to transfer ownership of the item(s) you sold to the buyer. Whether you own the item(s) or in your case you will buy your friend's used car in the meantime (or dig enough gold out of the ground - in the case of hedging a commodity exposure) is a matter of \"\"trust\"\". Hence there is normally some form of margin or credit-line involved to cover for you failing to deliver on expiry.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ce8990841beccdcdb14c77381c273494", "text": "Your impression about banks and bankers is very wrong. Wall street banks can and often do lose in transactions. In fact, banks go bankrupt and/or require massive bailouts to survive because they sometimes lose a ton of money. The business of investment banking often involves bearing risk for customers, which, by definition, means they lose some of the time. Generally the risks they take on individual transactions are not large enough to bring the whole bank down, but sometimes they are. Banking is a job like any other, except that it has more risk than most. Anyway, to your point, how do underwriters make money on shares that fall in value before the sale? On the commission. The issuing company will normally pay the investment bank a percentage of the funds raised in the offering, regardless of the price. Of course, it's possible for the bank to still lose money if their contract stipulates a minimum price and they are not able to meet it. In that case, the bank may lose on that offering, contradicting your preconceived notion. By the way, one other question implicit in your post: Why was the secondary offering considered bad news? If the CEO and other insiders have private information that indicates that the stock is overvalued, then doing a secondary offering at the inflated price will greatly enrich them. Because this happens some times, investors are wary about secondary offerings. This makes companies that would otherwise do a secondary offering shy away from it, even if shares are not overpriced. Therefore if a company is doing a secondary offering, the market is likely to worry that the stock is overvalued even at a reduced price.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "9d9f02719dc4bd5d2fe38df5e59c278b", "text": "In highly developed and competitive industries companies tread a continuous and very fine line between maximising shareholder profits by keeping prices up while making products as cheaply as possible, vs competitors lowering prices when they work out a way to make equivalents cheaper. In the short run you will quite often see companies hold onto large portions of efficiency savings (particularly if they make a major breakthrough in a specific manufacturing process etc) by holding old prices up, but in the long run competition pretty quickly lowers prices as the companies trying to keep high margins and prices get ruthlessly undercut by smaller competitors happy to make a bit less.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "52bbfff40cb3c26c0cb6c4697dcbec40", "text": "The public was sold the idea that losing manufacturing didn't matter. They were told not only do you get cheaper products. But you will get new cleaner service, and tech jobs that pay the same or better! People bought into it but 30 years later Ross Perot was proven right.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "63f1724f4c0a0b3f2e97ed990bac83fe", "text": "There is a highly related question which is much easier to answer: what normally value-increasing news about a company would cause that company to fall in value in the public stock market? By answering that, we can answer your question by proxy. The answer to that question being: anything that makes investors believe that the company won't be able to maintain the level of profit. For example, let's say a company announces a 300% profit growth compared to the previous year. This should push the stock upwards; maybe not by 300%, but certainly by quite a bit. Let's also say that this company is in the business of designing, manufacturing and selling some highly useful gadget that lots of people want to buy. Now suppose that the company managed such an profit increase by one of: In scenario 1 (firing the engineering department), it is highly unlikely that the company will be able to come up with, manufacture and sell a Next Generation Gadget. Hence, while profit is up now, it is highly likely to go down in the months and years coming up. Because stock market investors are more interested in future profits than in past profits, this should push the value of the company down. In scenario 2 (selling off the machinery), the company may very well be able to come up with a Next Generation Gadget, and if they can manufacture it, they might very well be able to sell it. However, no matter how you slice it, the short-term costs for manufacturing either their current generation Gadget, or the Next Generation Gadget, are bound to go up because the company will either need to rent machinery, or buy new machinery. Neither is good for future profits, so the value of the company again should go down in response. In scenario 3 (their product getting a large boost), the company still has all the things that allowed them to come up with, produce and sell Gadgets. They also have every opportunity to come up with, manufacture and sell Next Generation Gadgets, which implies that future profits, while far from guaranteed, are likely. In this case, the probability remains high that the company can actually maintain a higher level of profit. Hence, the value of the company should rise. Now apply this to a slightly more realistic scenario, and you can see why the value of a company can fall even if the company announces, for example, record profits. Hence, you are looking for news which indicate a present and sustained raised ability to turn a profit. This is the type of news that should drive any stock up in price, all else being equal. Obviously, buyer beware, your mileage may vary, all else is never equal, nothing ever hits the average, you are fighting people who do this type of analysis for a living and have every tool known available to them, etc etc. But that's the general idea.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "32329c2c15033e76b5811474523d7a06", "text": "This is how mints make money. They sell limited runs of items at a price significantly higher than their manufacturing cost. Some buyers hope that the scarce nature of the item will cause others to value it higher than the initial offer price but also some people just like to have them.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9d5bc374a5367ee82b656c65bbce0b3e", "text": "For a company the size of Amazon a 1% increase in prices is substantial. Many of their products are in fiercely competitive price sensitive markets. There are some products that people would notice a 1% difference from competitors. So the actual increase would have to be concentrated on a smaller subset of products that are not as price sensitive. However, that would still mean reduced sales. In short, I don't think amazon is foregoing a 50% bump in profits if they could get it. Also a 5% SGA cut is absolutely enormous for a lean organization. In any one year that would mean an effective ~10% cut once you factor in inflation.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a1ece231f4a6a24f77541da760f42283", "text": "\"WF has trust in certain customers. I doubt that they will lose that trust by lowering prices, and they will probably gain other customers as well. The thing you should probably do before making your judgements is to realize that the CEO of Amazon is probably a pretty smart person and he has access to information that you don't. So maybe you should lean on the side of \"\"Wait and See\"\" before making any judgements to a certain move.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "22db7194c1f7259e97ce4e26ccadce11", "text": "\"The entire time you've talked about cost. Changing incomes matters little if the cost scales with it. Me thinks you don't understand how a market works, even a semi-planned one. If more people make more money, the price of most goods goes up. This isn't due to real actual demand, its due to something called inflation. When the amount of money in circulation increases, we have inflation. Lets say I make 35k a year as a store clerk. Is my labor being undervalued compared to the income of a store clerk in the past? Or is the price of goods scaling faster than my income has scaled? Simply adding more money doesn't fix anything. The price of the good or service is what matters the most. While everyone having more money is good, you can't just magically give everyone more money without the cost of goods and services rising. I imagine that if everyone suddenly were at least a millionaire, the price of a laptop would sky rocket. The cost of the laptop in parts wouldn't be that much more, but since most people would have disposable income beyond their needs some goods would then get more expensive. Once that happens, the inflation of prices starts to spread until its effects are seen across the market. I don't think the \"\"fruit of my labor\"\" is being stolen by the \"\"upper class\"\". If anything, the fruit of my labor gets taken more and more by my own government and transferred to the lower classes more and more. I'm not rich, not even close. But I know I've had at least 15k of my income in the last 5 years taken and distributed through taxes ON my income to people that are generally unable to earn enough on their own. If these people are the upper class, then I must be Marie Antoinette!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "84e197ba22b582ffe057aaf34d5e94f8", "text": "It does have to do with supply and demand in a sense. My salary, as an engineer, has relatively little to do with the supply and demand of the parts my employers company makes. My salary does, however, depend (in part) on the supply of fellow engineers that have comparable skill sets to mine and the demand that companies have for engineers with comparable skill sets to mine.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0117102db5c34d86efc6909afcd4cf35", "text": "\"It seems this will be very much driven by price discrimination. If there are some customers who will pay up to $100, sell at that; and if there are others who'll pay $1 sell at that price. For instance you see computer games, which have zero marginal cost of production, sold at \"\"normal new release\"\" prices, at premium prices with a special box or doo-dad, and at discount prices once the game is a bit old.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7ea314b3dbeec651d17d4d45e178c4b9", "text": "Balanced out might be a better way to put it. Imports become cheaper, driving down inflation, which should permit companies to operate at a lower cost, which should eventually work to limit or eliminate the impact of the shift. These balancing factors generally occur in the long term and specific sectors of the economy will be impacted to different degrees.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "afc87e138f5ad7836364c72b04e864f2", "text": "News about a company is not the only thing that affects its stock's price. There is also supply and demand. That, of course, is influenced by news, but it is not the only actor. An insider, with a large position in their company's stock, may want to diversify his overall portfolio and thus need to sell a large amount of stock. That may be significant enough to increase supply and likely reduce the stock's price somewhat. That brings me to another influence on stock price: perception. Executives, and other insiders with large positions in their company's stock, have to be careful about how and when they sell some of that stock as to not worry the markets. Many investors watch insider selling to gauge the health of the company. Which brings me to another important point. There are many things that may be considered news which is material to a certain company and its stock. It is not just quarterly filings, earnings reports and such. There is also news related to competitors, news about the economy or a certain sector, news about some weather event that affects a major supplier, news about a major earthquake that will impact the economy of a nation which can then have knock-on effects to other economies, etc... There are also a lot of investors with varying needs which will influence supply and demand. An institutional investor, needing to diversify, may reduce their position in a stock and thus increase supply enough that it impacts the stock's price. Meanwhile, individual investors will make their transactions at varying times during the day. In the aggregate, that may have significant impacts on supply and demand. The overall point being that there are a lot of inputs and a lot of actors in a complicated system. Even if you focus just on news, there are many things that fall into that category. News does not come out at regular intervals and it does not necessarily spread evenly. That alone could make for a highly variable environment.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2923139f67bc06512a813a131913ad4a", "text": "\"The simplest answer would be: Because they can. Why charge less for something if people will pay more? One example are Apple products. While there the price number is not exactly the same in EUR and USD, they are so close that, effectively, the EUR product is more expensive. Many things go into a price. There might be reasons for products in the EU being more expensive to produce or distribute. Or people in the EU might be in general more willing to pay more for a certain product. In that case, a company would forgo profits when they offered it cheaper. Also, prices are relative. Is the USD price the \"\"correct\"\" one and the exchange rate should dictate what the EUR price is? Or vice versa?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "371e8f2e82be060229ed7fa33316d364", "text": "The mechanism of supply and demand is imperfect. Producers don't know exactly how many purchasers/consumers for a good there are. Some goods, by their nature, are in short supply, and some are plentiful. The process of price discovery is one where (in a nominally free market) producers and purchasers make offers and counter-offers to assess what the price should be. As they do this the historical price changes, usually floating around some long-term average. As it goes up, we experience inflation. As it goes down, deflation. However, there isn't a fixed supply of producers and purchasers, so as new ones arrive and old ones leave, this too has an impact on supply and prices. Money (either in electronic or physical form) needs to be available to reflect the transactions and underpin the economy. Most central banks (at least in more established economies) aim for inflation of 2-4% by controlling the availability of money and the cost of borrowing new money. There are numerous ways they can do this (printing, issuing bonds, etc.). The reason one wants some degree of inflation is because employees will never accept a pay cut even when one would significantly improve the overall economy. Companies often decrease their prices in order to match lower demand, but employees don't usually accept decreased wages for decreased labour demand. A nominal degree of overall money inflation therefore solves this problem. Employees who get a below-inflation wage increase are actually getting a wage cut. Supply and demand must be matched and some inflation is the inevitable consequence of this.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "abde78073282f0ab99adf09574459065", "text": "This sort of thinking is one of the problems with economics. It's way too simplistic, and unrepresentative of how a company works. No company increases the price of a product because they hired a more expensive employee, unless said employee is dead weight. It might be a process engineer, that right now costs the company a bit more, but 12 months down the line will improve production efficiency by at least the value of his salary. And if they improve it more, by say 200% of their salary? Product price stays the same, he gets a pat on his back from the boss, and the company increases it's profits. And what usually happens when you nickel-and-dime your employees? They lose engagement and interest, or worst, they hire a shit employee for a shit salary and get little to no benefit from hiring.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "efe70ea839b8b2502a417b3f0cdc2d5f", "text": "\"Yes and no. First off, commodity prices reflect the cost of a good about 3 steps back in the retail supply chain; the agreed-upon price for the raw foodstuff between farmers/ranchers and manufacturers. Your grocer may carry bags of whole grain wheat, but that's certainly not all he carries that contains it. Same for corn, rice and other staple grains, as well as for fruits and vegetables, herbs (yes, you can buy basil by the ton on the CME), meats, various sugars, etc. So, a long-term sustained change in prices of a commodity foodstuff will eventually affect the real cost to you to buy things they're made from. However, in the short term, the retail supply chain will generally act as a buffer between these prices and the ones you see on the store shelf. Consumers don't like price increases, especially of necessities like food. When food costs go up, consumers can and will very quickly change their spending habits, buying cheaper options to get their needed calories. That makes manufacturers nervous; consumers not buying their product is a worse scenario than consumers buying their product at a reduced gain or even at a loss. So, manufacturers, and suppliers and retailers, will all absorb as much as they can of the cost of a commodities increase before beginning to pass it on to consumers. On the flip side, while consumers like price drops, they don't notice them as much as price increases. So, the supply chain will also absorb a fall in commodity prices by resisting price reductions in the consumer goods, as long as they can get away with it (which is usually longer than the price reduction actually lasts). The net effect is that processed food prices typically follow the gentle upward climb of long-term inflation, and only rarely do you see drastic price increases or decreases. Where this model breaks down a little bit is in highly perishable foodstuffs, especially seasonal or \"\"wild-managed\"\" foods; fruits and vegetables, seafood, etc. The limited time in which the stuff can be sold makes the process of getting a fish out of the ocean and a fruit off the tree and into your grocery store much more market-driven; the producers, suppliers and grocers are all in constant contact over what's available and how much they can get for what price. The prices therefore are typically a lower markup (unlike highly processed grain-based foods, there's not much added value to be marked up between the apple farmer picking the fruit and the grocer putting it on display), but also much more volatile; if there's a bumper crop of fruit, the farmer has to unload it all or it goes to waste, while similarly if an early freeze decimated the apple crop, the suppliers can't just get some of last year's bumper crop out of storage; they fight with everyone else for what little made it to market. Farmers will sometimes intentionally let excess crop spoil in order to maintain a minimum price for what they sell (the rest can at least be composted and used for fertilizer, saving them some money on maintenance), but there's no silver bullet for a shortage. This is why a lot of these foods, especially seafood, are considered luxury items; they're not stable enough for everyone to get as much as they want whenever they want, unlike staple grains.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2545061699821509a05441398afc0d95", "text": "Stuff like this came about mainly when setting the new guidlines in medicare part D. Basically companies are able to reset their prices if they come up with a new method of delivery of a drug, sometimes it's faster and better but not always, especially since it's put into effect regardless. Since they already have a monopoly status due to the patent they set price equal to marginal revenue, which in this case happens to be quite a bit and since they own the only competing drug from what it sounds they are perfectly within their right to pull the old one.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "0498d551c7e0a4ad4de52bfab30b7d3e", "text": "How can I get quarterly information about private companies? Ask the owner(s). Unelss you have a relationship and they're interested in helping you, they will likely tell you no as there's no compelling reason for them to do so. It's a huge benefit of not taking a company public.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "fcaf54599e1643faabf88cf789396fb3", "text": "I guess you are making quite a bit of assumptions without clarifying what you are trying to achieve. As a non-resident you cannot incorporate a sole proprietorship in Singapore. You have to be citizen. Alternatively you can register a company that has its own norms like minimum number of directors and some being Singapore national, etc. As you are paying dividend and not salary to yourself, the company will be required to pay taxes on gains. So all consulting money is gain as there is no expense. The balance when you transfer to Spain would potentially get taxed as income to you subject to DTAA", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3b872a6d02dd992b30960d6d7e9b2b31", "text": "\"There are two kinds of engagements in an IPO. The traditional kind where the Banks assume the risks of unsold shares. Money coming out of their pockets to hold shares no one wants. That is the main risk. No one buying the stock that the bank is holding. Secondly, there is a \"\"best efforts\"\" engagement. This means that bank will put forth its best effort to sell the shares, but will not be on the hook if any don't sell. This is used for small cap / risky companies. Source: Author/investment banker\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4ad78c252c10c6b6a1ea91d8e2332a20", "text": "\"A company whose stock is available for sale to the public is called a publicly-held or publicly-traded company. A public company's stock is sold on a stock exchange, and anyone with money can buy shares through a stock broker. This contrasts with a privately-held company, in which the shares are not traded on a stock exchange. In order to invest in a private company, you would need to talk directly to the current owners of the company. Finding out if a company is public or private is fairly easy. One way to check this is to look at the Wikipedia page for the company. For example, if you take a look at the Apple page, on the right sidebar you'll see \"\"Type: Public\"\", followed by the stock exchange ticker symbol \"\"AAPL\"\". Compare this to the page for Mars, Inc.; on that page, you'll see \"\"Type: Private\"\", and no stock ticker symbol listed. Another way to tell: If you can find a quote for a share price on a financial site (such as Google Finance or Yahoo Finance), you can buy the stock. You won't find a stock price for Mars, Inc. anywhere, because the stock is not publicly traded.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "eb97f072861c891cdc887a8d726ad647", "text": "couple questions for clarification: 1. Investment firm is a pretty broad term. Do you mean Registered Investment Advisory firm or broker/dealer, or something else? 2. Are you asking if they can reveal who they generally custody assets with? if so yes, they are always willing to give this out and many firms use multiple custodians. If you are asking if they can reveal client information and where the assets are held, then no, absolutely not, the only reason they could legally give this out is if the feds inquired or if a court order was issued.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2ca73cc0c28838ed1dafb94c0b3cf5db", "text": "\"Shares sold to private investors are sold using private contracts and do not adhere to the same level of strict regulations as publicly traded shares. You may have different classes of shares in the company with different strings attached to them, depending on the deals made with the investors at the time. Since public cannot negotiate, the IPO prospectus is in fact the investment contract between the company and the public, and the requirements to what the company can put there are much stricter than private sales. Bob may not be able to sell his \"\"special\"\" stocks on the public exchange, as the IPO specifies which class of stock is being listed for trading, and Bob's is not the same class. He can sell it on the OTC market, which is less regulated, and then the buyer has to do his due diligence. Yes, OTC-sold stocks may have strings attached to them (for example a buy back option at a preset time and price).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cafd80031a7f88125c0fa2b02d28426a", "text": "I work for an investment group in Central Asia in private equity/project investment. We use SPV and collateralized convertible loans to enter a project, we issue the loan at our own commercial bank. For each industry, the exact mechanisms vary. In most outcomes, we end up in control of some very important part of the business, and even if we have minority shares on paper, no decision is made w/o our approval. For example, we enter cosntruction projects via aquisiton of land and pledging the land as equity for an SPV, then renting it to the project operator. Basically, when you enter a business, be in control of the decisions there, or have significant leverage on the operations. Have your own operating professionals to run it. Profit.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d19f5919f9a91c4219b84859430d0127", "text": "Ok, that's totally different then. The legislation that you were mentioning doesn't apply to prop shops that trade derivatives. If you want to end up in the equities world, then a place that requires those licenses that will pay for it doesn't seem like a bad deal.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "84684ca8001220b80db21a461e7b2e21", "text": "You won't be able to know the trading activity in a timely, actionable method in most cases. The exception is if the investor (individual, fund, holding company, non-profit foundation, etc) is a large shareholder of a specific company and therefore required to file their intentions to buy or sell with the SEC. The threshold for this is usually if they own 5% or greater of the outstanding shares. You can, however, get a sense of the holdings for some of the entities you mention with some sleuthing. Publicly-Traded Holding Companies Since you mention Warren Buffett, Berkshire Hathaway is an example of this. Publicly traded companies (that are traded on a US-based exchange) have to file numerous reports with the SEC. Of these, you should review their Annual Report and monitor all filings on the SEC's website. Here's the link to the Berkshire Hathaway profile. Private Foundations Harvard and Yale have private, non-profit foundations. The first place to look would be at the Form 990 filings each is required to file with the IRS. Two sources for these filings are GuideStar.org and the FoundationCenter.org. Keep in mind that if the private foundation is a large enough shareholder in a specific company, they, too, will be required to file their intentions to buy or sell shares in that company. Private Individuals Unless the individual publicly releases their current holdings, the only insight you may get is what they say publicly or have to disclose — again, if they are a major shareholder.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2558005d3942eb1f47665d8d63608efe", "text": "Yes you can get them from your broker. Two main advantages I can see are:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8677ffa9c1ac3a3f5bca189a6db0e873", "text": "You cannot trade in pre-IPO shares of companies like Facebook without being an accredited investor. If a website or company doesn't mention that requirement, they are a scam. A legitimate market for private shares is SecondMarket.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e43efd4d3a220dd0bfa96725213ba2ef", "text": "All request and new cases are productively evaluated and screened online at Contact Us. Introductory consultations, LLC formations, and records for routine land and business exchanges are taken care of only online at prudent level expenses. A scope of Delaware llc in-office benefits after the underlying conference is offered yet at expenses higher than those cited for online things. We will keep you refreshed all through the procedure. We give steady correspondence and continuous notices as we process your incorporation.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cdede2d6ab1995907a3815ae89f6983d", "text": "it sounds like you don't have experience in this, and neither does your *investor*; which is a recipe for disaster (pun intended). Your first order of business is to check whether your investor is an *Accredited Investor* (google to see what it means), if s/he's not, **walk away**. If s/he's an accredited investor, find a lawyer who can help you navigate this process, however these are the issues: * lawyers are expensive, and lawyers who have experience in these type of transactions are even more expensive * you actually need 2 lawyers, one for you and one for the investor * if neither of you have experience, there will be a lot more billable hours from the lawyers..... In principle this can go 3 ways: 1. The investors give you a loan, you pay them interests on a periodic basis, and then also principal. Items to be negotiated: interest rates, repayment schedule, collateral, personal guarantees. Highly unlikely this is what the investors wants. 2. The Investors get equity. items to be negotiated: your compensation, % of ownership, how profits are divided, how profits are paid; who gets to decide what. 3. A combination of 1 and 2 above, a *Convertible Note*. There's a lot more, too much for a Reddit post. There's not an easy ELI5.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2095856000a43ba310d2ac61948c6cb0", "text": "Stuff I wish I had known, based on having done the following: Obtained employment at a startup that grants Incentive Stock Options (ISOs); Early-exercised a portion of my options when fair market value was very close to my strike price to minimize AMT; made a section 83b) election and paid my AMT up front for that tax year. All this (the exercise and the AMT) was done out of pocket. I've never see EquityZen or Equidate mention anything about loans for your exercise. My understanding is they help you sell your shares once you actually own them. Stayed at said startup long enough to have my exercised portion of these ISOs vest and count as long term capital gains; Tried to sell them on both EquityZen and Equidate with no success, due to not meeting their transaction minimums. Initial contact with EquityZen was very friendly and helpful, and I even got a notice about a potential sale, but then they hired an intern to answer emails and I remember his responses being particularly dismissive, as if I was wasting their time by trying to sell such a small amount of stock. So that didn't go anywhere. Equidate was a little more friendly and was open to the option of pooling shares with other employees to make a sale in order to meet their minimum, but that never happened either. My advice, if you're thinking about exercising and you're worried about liquidity on the secondary markets, would be to find out what the minimums would be for your specific company on these platforms before you plunk any cash down. Eventually brought my request for liquidity back to the company who helped connect me with an interested external buyer, and we completed the transaction that way. As for employer approval - there's really no reason or basis that your company wouldn't allow it (if you paid to exercise then the shares are yours to sell, though the company may have a right of first refusal). It's not really in the company's best interest to have their shares be illiquid on the secondary markets, since that sends a bad signal to potential investors and future employees.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f5f20c9dfd3239e234d66385fb395d15", "text": "What I think was being asked (and so this is how I interpreted it) is not the transition from public to private, but a corporation itself buying all its shares back, and as a result having no shareholders. In this case we could envision that all outstanding shares would be become treasury stock. My argument was that this would never happen in a practical setting. Obviously, if you interpret the question differently, for instance to be about all the shares of firm being purchased by someone else (as in a private equity buyout), you get very different answers about practicality. So I'm not disagreeing with you at all, I just read the question differently.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "02652a2907593af155500446726db5b3", "text": "Usually your best bet for this sort of thing is to look for referrals from people you trust. If you have a lawyer or other trusted advisor, ask them.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "39a433a84ddadd612b78e80c78d4808f", "text": "\"The UK has Islamic banks. I don't know whether Germany has the same or not (with a quick search I can find articles stating intentions to establish one, but not the results). Even if there's none in Germany, I assume that with some difficulty you could use banks elsewhere in the EU and even non-Euro-denominated. I can't recommend a specific provider or product (never used them and probably wouldn't offer recommendations on this site anyway), but they advertise savings accounts. I've found one using a web search that offers an \"\"expected profit rate\"\" of 1.9% for a 12 month fix, which is roughly comparable with \"\"typical\"\" cash savings products in pounds sterling. Typical to me I mean, not to you ;-) Naturally you'd want to look into the risk as well. Their definition of Halal might not precisely match yours, but I'm sure you can satisfy yourself by looking into the details. I've noticed for example a statement that the bank doesn't invest your money in tobacco or alcohol, which you don't give as a requirement but I'm going to guess wouldn't object to!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "322adf88e50cec540e2b289c981ad770", "text": "You can invest in a couple of Sharia-conform ETFs which are available in Germany and issued by Deutsche Bank (and other financial institutions). For instance, have a look at these ETFs: DB Sharia ETFs In addition, Kuveyt Turk Bank aims to become Germany's first Islamic bank offering Sharia conform investments (Reuters).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dd013c343baa4481ea089b48a77aae36", "text": "\"What is actually a halal investment? Your definition of halal investment is loose and subject to interpretation. On one hand, nothing is fixed in the financial world. You might get a 10 Year Germany Bund with a fixed coupon rate of 1%, but the real rate of return of this investment is far from fixed. It depends on the market environment, the inflation, etc. (Also, you can trade this investment on the secondary market at any time.) Moreover, the country can default. For example, nothing is \"\"fixed\"\" if you hold the Argentina bonds. You might think a saving account in the bank is a fixed investment. But again, what about the inflation? And if you talk with the account holders in Cyprus, you will understand there is no such thing that you are \"\"guaranteed to profit a fixed amount each month or year\"\". So, from this point of view, everything is \"\"halal\"\", because nothing is fixed and the risk of losing the principle is alway there. On the other hand, if you assume that investing a government bond and having a saving account is not halal by definition, you will end up with a situation that every investment is not halal. Suppose you invest in a company. What does the company do with your money? Sure, they will use some of your money to buy equipments, hire new people, and so on. But they will always save some money as cash reserves to meet the short-term and emergency funding needs. Those cash reserves are usually in the form of highly liquid investment, such as short-term bonds, money market funds, savings in a bank account, etc. Because those investments are not halal per definition, is your investment in the company still halal? So in the end, you might just do whatever you want depending on your interpretation.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "edfb5aeb4679f536da7472fa3de96b80", "text": "What is not permitted in Islam is the practice of making unethical or immoral monetary loans that unfairly enrich the lender. Originally, usury meant interest of any kind. A loan may be considered usurious because of excessive or abusive interest rates or other factors. But In case of financial markets, people borrow money to make money and both parties benefits, and no one is taking advantage of the other. I may be wrong in interpreting this way, God knows the best.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "fb7489191787be6458bb24d48707cb7c", "text": "You are not limited in these 3 choices. You can also invest in ETFs, which are similar to mutual funds, but traded like stocks. Usually (at least in Canada), MERs for ETFs are smaller than for mutual funds.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2fc135b838728f4607f8c4b954275f64", "text": "Bank accounts? It is worse than that. People are afraid to invest in bank accounts. Did you see the bit when German government bonds hit a negative interest rate recently? (As in you buy a bond and in five years time the government promises to give nearly all of it back)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7624eb3ecdcd90198d5248bf06e3b563", "text": "One possibility would be to invest in a crude oil ETF (or maybe technically they're an ETP), which should be easily accessible through any stock trading platform. In theory, the value of these investments is directly tied to the oil price. There's a list of such ETFs and some comments here. But see also here about some of the problems with such things in practice, and some other products aiming to avoid those issues. Personally I find the idea of putting all my savings into such a vehicle absolutely horrifying; I wouldn't contemplate having more than a small percentage of a much more well diversified portfolio invested in something like that myself, and IMHO it's a completely unsuitable investment for a novice investor. I strongly suggest you read up on topics like portfolio construction and asset allocation (nice introductory article here and here, although maybe UK oriented; US SEC has some dry info here) before proceeding further and putting your savings at risk.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "597e6d04eba8bbeb3344b750e7fe1092", "text": "\"This is my two cents (pun intended). It was too long for a comment, so I tried to make it more of an answer. I am no expert with investments or Islam: Anything on a server exists 'physically'. It exists on a hard drive, tape drive, and/or a combination thereof. It is stored as data, which on a hard drive are small particles that are electrically charged, where each bit is represented by that electric charge. That data exists physically. It also depends on your definition of physically. This data is stored on a hard drive, which I deem physical, though is transferred via electric pulses often via fiber cable. Don't fall for marketing words like cloud. Data must be stored somewhere, and is often redundant and backed up. To me, money is just paper with an amount attached to it. It tells me nothing about its value in a market. A $1 bill was worth a lot more 3 decades ago (you could buy more goods because it had a higher value) than it is today. Money is simply an indication of the value of a good you traded at the time you traded. At a simplistic level, you could accomplish the same thing with a friend, saying \"\"If you buy lunch today, I'll buy lunch next time\"\". There was no exchange in money between me and you, but there was an exchange in the value of the lunch, if that makes sense. The same thing could have been accomplished by me and you exchanging half the lunch costs in physical money (or credit/debit card or check). Any type of investment can be considered gambling. Though you do get some sort of proof that the investment exists somewhere Investments may go up or down in value at any given time. Perhaps with enough research you can make educated investments, but that just makes it a smaller gamble. Nothing is guaranteed. Currency investment is akin to stock market investment, in that it may go up or down in value, in comparison to other currencies; though it doesn't make you an owner of the money's issuer, generally, it's similar. I find if you keep all your money in U.S. dollars without considering other nations, that's a sort of ignorant way of gambling, you're betting your money will lose value less slowly than if you had it elsewhere or in multiple places. Back on track to your question: [A]m I really buying that currency? You are trading a currency. You are giving one currency and exchanging it for another. I guess you could consider that buying, since you can consider trading currency for a piece of software as buying something. Or is the situation more like playing with the live rates? It depends on your perception of playing with the live rates. Investments to me are long-term commitments with reputable research attached to it that I intend to keep, through highs and lows, unless something triggers me to change my investment elsewhere. If by playing you mean risk, as described above, you will have a level of risk. If by playing you mean not taking it seriously, then do thorough research before investing and don't be trading every few seconds for minor returns, trying to make major returns out of minor returns (my opinion), or doing anything based on a whim. Was that money created out of thin air? I suggest you do more research before starting to trade currency into how markets and trading works. Simplistically, think of a market as a closed system with other markets, such as UK market, French market, etc. Each can interact with each other. The U.S. [or any market] has a set number of dollars in the pool. $100 for example's sake. Each $1 has a certain value associated with it. If for some reason, the country decides to create more paper that is green, says $1, and stamps presidents on them (money), and adds 15 $1 to the pool (making it $115), each one of these dollars' value goes down. This can also happen with goods. This, along with the trading of goods between markets, peoples' attachment of value to goods of the market, and peoples' perception of the market, is what fluctates currency trading, in simple terms. So essentially, no, money is not made out of thin air. Money is a medium for value though values are always changing and money is a static amount. You are attempting to trade values and own the medium that has the most value, if that makes sense. Values of goods are constantly changing. This is a learning process for me as well so I hope this helps answers your questions you seem to have. As stated above, I'm no expert; I'm actually quite new to this, so I probably missed a few things here and there.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9d155f9d18eb8d36cf84227f169d5674", "text": "There are lot of options. I personally avoid keeping money in bank accounts and invest in one of the funds. It's just my personal opinion, you can ask your Ulamas", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6043f38787d467997ff5fd6af3ed2680", "text": "A guy I used to work with would buy some shares in certain companies on a regular basis. The guy in question chose Coke, Pepsi, GE, Disney and some other old stable stocks. He just kept buying a few shared ($50 or so at a time) year after year after year. He worked his entire life, but by the time he was ready to retire, he had a pretty sizable investment; he was worth a rather tidy sum. The moral of the story is, it is very much worth it to invest a bit at a time. Don't bother with the idea of buying low and selling high; not right now. Just go ahead and buy stable stocks (or shares of index funds) and wait them out. This strategy (mixed with other retirement tactics like a 401K from work, and IRA of your own, Social Security in the US) is a good way to build wealth. Don't spend money you don't have, be ready for a long term investment and I think it makes great sense, regardless of what country you live in.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4d0c682843b282a6198ecc012f163746", "text": "This. Why not convert the 50k euro to dollars and AUD, and invest in a basket of companies that trade on American/Australian exchanges instead. You could hold a bit of gold, but I would definitely not put everything into gold.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7edb0443a0be511f049c198dab38a4bc", "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.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d388e19f4300d6d95e8b201b3d232df5", "text": "Here's an unconventional approach: If you really need the money you can always call the bank or go to one of their branches and get new login credentials after some kind of formal process like proving that you are in fact the account holder. Since it will be a hassle to get the credentials you will not do it if it's not necessary. In germany the banks all use transaction authentication numbers (TAN) that you need to authorize a transfer. If there is such a thing in UK you can just throw the TAN list away. This way you can still check your savings balance but you cannot transfer the money without requesting a new TAN list which takes time and effort.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1f5747cf4bc4955f3b1a7492034f2a17", "text": "\"With permanent contract in Germany you shouldn't have any problem getting a loan. It's even more important than how much do you earn. Generally, you should ask for a house mortgage (Baufinanzierungsdarlehen) with annuity as a type of credit to save on interest. Besides, you usually get a better conditions with a saving bank (Sparkasse) or a popular bank (Volksbank) situated in the area where your house is situated. You also shouldn't combine your credit with extra products (the simpler is the product, the better is for you), maybe I'll write later an extra piece on the common pitfalls in this regard. Probably, you could find a bank that would give you such a loan, but it would be very expensive. You should save at least 40%, because then the bank can refinance your loan cheaply and in return offer you a low interest. Taxes depend heavily on the place where you buy a house. When you buy it, you pay a tax between 3.5% and 6% (look up here). Then you pay a property tax (Grundsteuer), it depends on community how much do you pay, the leverage is called Hebesatz (here's example). Notary would cost ca. 1.5% of the house price. All and all, you should calculate with 10% A country-independent advice: if you want to save on interest in the long run, you should take an annuity loan with the shortest maturity. Pay attention to effective interest rate. Now to Germany specifics. Don't forget to ask about \"\"Sondertilgung\"\" (extra amortization) - an option to amortize additionaly. Usually, banks offer 5% Sondertilgung p.a. The interest-rate is usually fixed for 8 years (however, ask about it), this period is called Zinsbindung. It sound ridiculous, but in southern lands (Bayern, Baden-Württemberg) you usually get better conditions as in Berlin or Bremen. The gap could be as big as 0.5% p.a. of effective interest rate! In Germany they often use so-called \"\"anfängliche Tilgung\"\" (initial rate of amortizazion) as a parameter.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "147702b696d74f38ad96ef0b2785ada8", "text": "Compound interest is your friend. For such a low amount of cash, just pop it into savings accounts or deposits. When you reach about 1.500€ buy one very defensive stock that pays high dividends. With deposits, you don't risk anything, with one stock, you can lose 100% of the investment. That's why it's important to buy defensive stock (food, pharma, ...). Every time you hit 1.500€ after, buy another stock until you have about 10 different stock in different sectors, in different countries. Then buy more stock of the ones you have in portfolio. You're own strategy is pretty good also.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2ccdf1e5dd46c8433b4bc98d3814f4ea", "text": "We don't have a good answer for how to start investing in poland. We do have good answers for the more general case, which should also work in Poland. E.g. Best way to start investing, for a young person just starting their career? This answer provides a checklist of things to do. Let's see how you're doing: Match on work pension plan. You don't mention this. May not apply in Poland, but ask around in case it does. Given your income, you should be doing this if it's available. Emergency savings. You have plenty. Either six months of spending or six months of income. Make sure that you maintain this. Don't let us talk you into putting all your money in better long term investments. High interest debt. You don't have any. Keep up the good work. Avoid PMI on mortgage. As I understand it, you don't have a mortgage. If you did, you should probably pay it off. Not sure if PMI is an issue in Poland. Roth IRA. Not sure if this is an issue in Poland. A personal retirement account in the US. Additional 401k. A reminder to max out whatever your work pension plan allows. The name here is specific to the United States. You should be doing this in whatever form is available. After that, I disagree with the options. I also disagree with the order a bit, but the basic idea is sound: one time opportunities; emergency savings; eliminate debt; maximize retirement savings. Check with a tax accountant so as not to make easily avoidable tax mistakes. You can use some of the additional money for things like real estate or a business. Try to keep under 20% for each. But if you don't want to worry about that kind of stuff, it's not that important. There's a certain amount of effort to maintain either of those options. If you don't want to put in the effort to do that, it makes sense not to do this. If you have additional money split the bulk of it between stock and bond index funds. You want to maintain a mix between about 70/30 and 75/25 stocks to bonds. The index funds should be based on broad indexes. They probably should be European wide for the most part, although for stocks you might put 10% or so in a Polish fund and another 15% in a true international fund. Think over your retirement plans. Where do you want to live? In your current apartment? In a different apartment in the same city? In one of the places where you inherited property? Somewhere else entirely? Also, do you like to vacation in that same place? Consider buying a place in the appropriate location now (or keeping the one you have if it's one of the inherited properties). You can always rent it out until then. Many realtors are willing to handle the details for you. If the place that you want to retire also works for vacations, consider short term rentals of a place that you buy. Then you can reserve your vacation times while having rentals pay for maintenance the rest of the year. As to the stuff that you have now: Look that over and see if you want any of it. You also might check if there are any other family members that might be interested. E.g. cousins, aunts, uncles, etc. If not, you can probably sell it to a professional company that handles estate sales. Make sure that they clear out any junk along with the valuable stuff. Consider keeping furniture for now. Sometimes it can help sell a property. You might check if you want to drive either of them. If not, the same applies, check family first. Otherwise, someone will buy them, perhaps on consignment (they sell for a commission rather than buying and reselling). There's no hurry to sell these. Think over whether you might want them. Consider if they hold any sentimental value to you or someone else. If not, sell them. If there's any difficulty finding a buyer, consider renting them out. You can also rent them out if you want time to make a decision. Don't leave them empty too long. There's maintenance that may need done, e.g. heat to keep water from freezing in the pipes. That's easy, just invest that. I wouldn't get in too much of a hurry to donate to charity. You can always do that later. And try to donate anonymously if you can. Donating often leads to spam, where they try to get you to donate more.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7847578cee6631c25a5d983b43d22e33", "text": "\"On contrary of what Mike Scott suggested, I think in case of EURO DOOM it's a lot safer if your savings were changed into another currency in advance. Beware that bringing your money into an EURO CORE country (like Finland, Austria, Germany, Nethereland) it's useful if you think those banks are safer, but totally useless to avoid the conversion of your saving from Euro into your national currency. In case of EURO CRASH, only the Central Bank will decide what happens to ALL the Euro deposited wherever, single banks, even if they are Deutsche Bank or BNP or ING, can not decide what to do on their own. ECB (European Central Bank) might decide to convert EURO into local currencies based on the account's owner nationality. Therefor if you are Greek and you moved your saving in a German bank, the ECB might decide that your Euro are converted into New Dracma even if they sit in a German bank account. The funniest thing is that if you ask to a Finland bank: \"\"In case of Euro crash, would you convert my Euro into New Dracma?\"\", they sure would answer \"\"No, we can't!\"\", which is true, they can not because it's only the ECB (Europe Central Bank) the one that decides how an ordered Euro crash has to be manged, and the ECB might decide as I explained you above. Other Central Banks (Swiss, FED, etc.) would only follow the decisions of the ECB. Moreover in case of EURO DOOM, it's highly probable that the Euro currency looses a tremendous value compared to other currencies, the loss would be huge in case the Euro Crash happens in a disordered way (i.e. a strong country like Germany and their banks decides to get out and they start printing their own money w/o listening to the ECB anymore). So even if your saving are in Euro in Germany they would loose so much value (compared to other currencies) that you will regreat forever not to have converted them into another currency when you had the time to do it. Couple of advises: 1) If you want to change you savings into another currency you don't need to bring them into another bank/country (like US), you could simply buy US Shares/Bonds at your local bank. Shares/Bonds of a US company/US gov will always be worth their value in dollars no matter in what new pathetic currency your account will be converted. 2) But is there a drawback in converting my saving into another currency (i.e. buying dollars in the form of US treasury bonds)? Unfortunately yes, the drawback is that in case this Euro drama comes finally to an happy ending and Germans decide to open their wallets for the nth time to save the currency, the Euro might suddenly increase its value compared to other currencies, therefor if you changed your saving into another currency you might loose money (i.e. US dollars looses value against the Euro).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "68307d5be9ffcdcde08545453139e73a", "text": "\"Buying physical gold: bad idea; you take on liquidity risk. Putting all your money in a German bank account: bad idea; you still do not escape Euro risk. Putting all your money in USD: bad idea; we have terrible, terrible fiscal problems here at home and they're invisible right now because we're in an election year. The only artificially \"\"cheap\"\" thing that is well-managed in your part of the world is the Swiss Franc (CHF). They push it down artificially, but no government has the power to fight a market forever. They'll eventually run out of options and have to let the CHF rise in value.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4d9f05f39288a85e40d0d2571f7e15c5", "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.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "5d7cffc6473a5e945a5e089e0fb84d00", "text": "profit has nothing to do with the level of interest rates. Is this correct? In theory, yes. The difference that you're getting at is called net interest margin. As long as this stays constant, so does the bank's profit. According to this article: As long as the interest rate charged on loans doesn't decline faster than the interest rate received on deposit accounts, banks can continue to operate normally or even reduce their bad loan exposure by offering lower lending rates to already-proven borrowers. So banks may be able to acquire the same net interest margin with lower risk. However the article also mentions new research from a federal agency: Their findings show that net interest margins (NIMs) get worse during low-rate environments, defined as any time when a country's three-month sovereign bond yield is less than 1.25%. So in theory banks should remain profitable when interest rates are low, but this may not actually be the case.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0f5af17b5140e42ea036fa485a4e5a7a", "text": "I've read this claim many times in the news: banks are making less profit from the lending business when interest rates are historically low. The issue with most loans is they can be satisfied at any time. When you have falling interest rates it means most of the banks loans are refinanced from nice high rates to current market low interest rates which can significantly reduce the expected return on past loans. The bank gets the money back when it wants it the least because it can only re-lend the money at the current market (lower) interest rates. When interest rates are increasing refinance and early repayment activity reduces significantly. It's important to look at the loan from the point of view of the bank, a bank must first issue out the entire principal amount. On a 60 month loan the lender has not received payments sufficient to satisfy the principal until around 50th or 55th month depending on the interest rate. If the bank receives payment of the outstanding amount on month 30 the expected return on that loan is reduced significantly. Consider a $10,000, 60 month loan at 5% apr. The bank is expected to receive $11,322 in total for interest income of $1,322. If the loan is repaid on month 30, the total interest is about $972. That's a 26% reduction of expected interest income, and the money received can only be re-lent for yet a lower interest rate. Add to this the tricky accounting of holding a loan, which is really a discounted bond, which is an asset, on the books and profitability of lending while interest rates are falling gets really funky. And this doesn't even examine default risk/cost.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "18a79eb08dc3d53a6c2c3ed6f6d25b4b", "text": "\"Banks make less profit when \"\"long\"\" rates are low compared to \"\"short\"\" rates. Banks lend for long term purposes like five year business loans or 30 year mortgages. They get their funds from (mostly) \"\"short term\"\" deposits, which can be emptied in days. Banks make money on the difference between 5 and 30 year rates, and short term rates. It is the difference, and not the absolute level of rates, that determines their profitability. A bank that pays 1% on CDs, and lends at 3% will make money. During the 1970s, short rates kept rising,and banks were stuck with 30 year loans at 7% from the early part of the decade, when short rates rose to double digits around 1980, and they lost money.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "1279c20458071181639872766799d542", "text": "What you say about monetary velocity is true, but I don't think its the whole story. Banks also create money by lending out their deposits: if I put $1000 in my account, and the bank lends out $500 of it, I still have my $1000 on deposit but someone else is also spending an extra $500. If the banks are lending less then this effect is reduced and the volume of money reduces as well as its velocity.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "896208cf931b4d42a546ce95fc9c95d3", "text": "ChelseaFC rocked number 2, so before I try to answer number 1, I'll just mention that academics generally ignored negative *real* interest rates, and have always admitted that negative *nominal* rates were perfectly possible. There's nothing in his explanation that I think is controversial at this point though. As for number 1, a drop in a company's share price affects the company's ability to raise cash in the present and future. In a closely related issue, that drop can affect the company's ability to compensate its employees through options and restricted stock grants. In the long run (and I suspect you already know this), and drop in the share price affects the shareholders' wealth, and can lead them to demand that changes be made to be firm's operations (usually, changes made to who's running the firm). If a firm doesn't need more financing, and it doesn't pay any employees with stock or derivatives on its stock, then changes to its stock price won't affect the firm's operations in the slightest. Naturally, this assuming that the change in stock prices isn't indicative of changes to the economy, but that's a causal relationship in the other direction (the stock price reflects changes in operations, not the other way around).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8d9a776d08c206dacd7cec3133072133", "text": "\"With (1), it's rather confusing as to where \"\"interest\"\" refers to what you're paying and where it refers to what you're being paid, and it's confusing what you expect the numbers to work out to be. If you have to pay normal interest on top of sharing the interest you receive, then you're losing money. If the lending bank is receiving less interest than the going market rate, then they're losing money. If the bank you've deposited the money with is paying more than the going market rate, they're losing money. I don't see how you imagine a scenario where someone isn't losing money. For (2) and (3), you're buying stocks on margin, which certainly is something that happens, but you'll have to get an account that is specifically for margin trading. It's a specific type of credit with specific rules, and you if you want to engage in this sort of trading, you should go through established channels rather than trying to convert a regular loan into margin trading. If you get a personal loan that isn't specifically for margin trading, and buy stocks with the money, and the stocks tank, you can be in serious trouble. (If you do it through margin trading, it's still very risky, but not nearly as risky as trying to game the system. In some cases, doing this makes you not only civilly but criminally liable.) The lending bank absolutely can lose if your stocks tank, since then there will be nothing backing up the loan.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1cb916d0e43a50f25c6741433bb8358f", "text": "\"Can it be so that these low-interest rates cause investors to take greater risk to get a decent return? With interest rates being as low as they are, there is little to no risk in banking; especially after Dodd-Frank. \"\"Risk\"\" is just a fancy word for \"\"Will I make money in the near/ long future.\"\" No one knows what the actual risk is (unless you can see into the future.) But there are ways to mitigate it. So, arguably, the best way to make money is the stock market, not in banking. There is a great misallocation of resources which at some point will show itself and cause tremendous losses, even maybe cause a new financial crisis? A financial crisis is backed on a believed-to-be strong investment that goes belly-up. \"\"Tremendous Losses\"\" is a rather grand term with no merit. Banks are not purposely keeping interest rates low to cause a financial crisis. As the central banks have kept interest rates extremely low for a decade, even negative, this affects how much we save and borrow. The biggest point here is to know one thing: bonds. Bonds affect all things from municipalities, construction, to pensions. If interest rates increased currently, the current rate of bonds would drop vastly and actually cause a financial crisis (in the U.S.) due to millions of older persons relying on bonds as sources of income.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bd585fa26eeb5e188fb1aad4503d3bda", "text": "Since 1971, mortgage interest rates have never been more than .25% below current rates (3.6%). Even restricting just to the last four years, rates have been as much as .89% higher. Overall, we're much closer to the record low interest rate than any type of high. We're currently at a three-year low. Yes, we should expect interest rates to go up. Eventually. Maybe when that happens, bonds will fall. It hasn't happened yet though. In fact, there remain significant worries that the Fed has been overly aggressive in raising rates (as it was around 2008). The Brexit side effects seem to be leaning towards an easing in monetary policy rather than a tightening.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "390afd4dabff9fdbde3d42a41d0007ca", "text": "What the comments above say is true, but one more thing is there. FD rates are directly proportional to loan rates. However, banks make money because loan rates will always be higher than FD rates.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a85d503f11eeb1038839cd5d77b2a89a", "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.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "90e6f21f589db948c8ece7bcab290e55", "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.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9d25f7b5b2a6e7e660a965a644280c9c", "text": "\"QUICK ANSWER When it comes to fixed income assets, whether rental real estate or government bonds, it's unusual for highly-leveraged assets to yield less than the same asset unleveraged or lowly-leveraged. This is especially so in countries where interest costs are tax deductible. If we exclude capital losses (i.e. the property sells in future at a price less than it was purchased) or net rental income that doesn't keep up with maintenance, regulatory, taxation, inflation and / or other costs, there is one primary scenario where higher leverage results in lower yields compared to lower leverage, even if rental income keeps up with non-funding costs. This occurs when variable rate financing is used and rates substantially increase. EXPLANATION Borrowers and lenders in different countries have different mortgage rate customs. Some are more likely to have long-term fixed rates; some prefer variable rates; and others are a hybrid, i.e. fixed for a few years and then become variable. If variable rates are used for a mortgage and the reference rates increase substantially, as they did in the US during the 1970s, the borrower can easily become \"\"upside-down,\"\" i.e. owe more on the mortgage than the property is then worth, and have mortgage service costs that exceed the net rental income. Some of those costs aren't easy to pass along to renters, even when there are periodic lease renewals or base rent increases referencing inflation rates. Central banks set policies for what would be the lowest short-term rates in a country that has such a bank. Private sector rates are established broadly by supply and demand for credit and can thus diverge markedly from central bank rates. Over time, the higher finance-carrying-cost-to-net-rental-income ratio should abate as (1) rental market prices change to reflect the costs and (2) the landlord can reinvest his net rental income at a higher rate. In the short-term though, this can result in the landlord having to \"\"eat\"\" the costs making his yield on his leveraged fixed income asset less than what he would have without leverage, even if the property was later sold at same price regardless of financing method. ========== Interestingly, and on the flip side, this is one of the quirks in finance where an accounting liability can become, at least in part, an economic asset. If a landlord borrows at a high loan-to-value ratio for a fixed interest rate for the life of the mortgage and rates, variable and fixed, were to increase substantially, the difference between his original rate and the present rates accrues to him. If he's able to sell the property with the loan attached (which is not uncommon for commercial, industrial and sometimes municipal real estate), the buyer will be assuming a liability with a lower carrying cost than his present alternatives and will hence pay a higher price for the property than if it were unleveraged. With long-term rates in many economically advanced countries at historic lows, if a borrower today were to take a long-term fixed rate loan and rates shortly after increased substantially, he may have an instant profit in this scenario even if his property hasn't increased in value.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9fb5a92addcdf90cef1c1a0b27106004", "text": "\"Good news, but not surprising. The banks have largely done well over the last handful of years in terms of having sufficient capital to be able to withstand the Fed's downside models. The issues largely arise in regards to current dividend and share buy-back plans which the models assume are constant despite them being entirely discretionary. As a result it isn't uncommon for banks to have \"\"failed\"\" in the past which simply required a scaling down of dividends to solve.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1b79b7b99ed5009f4f2901d4a3c970d8", "text": "I'm not too familiar with the Bank of England's objectives, but it seems similar to the FED's QE program. The interest rate the BOE sets, similar to the FED rate, affects mainly the short term (the left side) of the [interest rate curve](http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/statistics/pages/yieldcurve/default.aspx). However, in order to bring down intermediate and long term rates, central banks will buy intermediate and long dated government and corporate bonds. The government's added demand will drive those bond prices up, which will drive yields down. But like I said, I'm not too familiar with the BOE's bond purchasing program, so I could be way off base here.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f4e568fc53ff5d53ffd4f2074cb925a0", "text": "It depends on your bank's terms (which may in turn be influenced by laws and regulations), but most banks calculate interest on a per-day basis, so if you leave the money in the account for more than a day, it will generate interest. However, it will most likely be so little that you could make more money doing any kind of paid work in the time it took you to write this question...", "title": "" }, { "docid": "abe92cdc5cbfbffbfa49e82267ecb5ca", "text": "Generally a credit union will tend to have lower rates, since they are owned by the members, and not having to make a profit for some rich bankers or a bunch of shareholders. OTOH their funds are often more limited than a bank, and they may be pickier about who they loan to. still that's just 'generally', it always pays to shop around", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1cf9c7613a8b1d0fd44de8be4f8b61b0", "text": "Keep in mind there are a couple of points to ponder here: Rates are really low. With rates being so low, unless there is deflation, it is pretty easy to see even moderate inflation of 1-2% being enough to eat the yield completely which would be why the returns are negative. Inflation is still relatively contained. With inflation low, there is no reason for the central banks to raise rates which would give new bonds a better rate. Thus, this changes in CPI are still in the range where central banks want to be stimulative with their policy which means rates are low which if lower than inflation rates would give a negative real return which would be seen as a way to trigger more spending since putting the money into treasury debt will lose money to inflation in terms of purchasing power. A good question to ponder is has this happened before in the history of the world and what could we learn from that point in time. The idea for investors would be to find alternative holdings for their cash and bonds if they want to beat inflation though there are some inflation-indexed bonds that aren't likely appearing in the chart that could also be something to add to the picture here.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3b2dea4f557792057a43a62a5cc9c0ce", "text": "I think it's only a choice of terminology. Typically with a money market account has check-writing privileges whereas a savings account does not. In terms of rates, this blog has a good list of high interest yield savings accounts. http://www.hustlermoneyblog.com/best-bank-rates/ Disclosure: I am not affiliated with this blog. I just think it is a good resource to compare the rates across different banks.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "31440fe1300072d02dfd346fb49498a3", "text": "Stock price is an indicator about the health of the company. Increased profits (for example) will drive the stock price up; excessive debt (for example) will drive it down. The stock price has a profound effect on the company overall: for example, a declining share price will make it hard to secure credit, attract further investors, build partnerships, etc. Also, employees are often holding options or in a stock purchase plan, so a declining share price can severely dampen morale. In an extreme case, if share prices plummet too far, the company can be pressured to reverse-split the shares, and (eventually) take the company private. This recently happened to Playboy.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cbdedbf2a7a73dfb9dae5366bc38387f", "text": "The other answer has some good points, to which I'll add this: I believe you're only considering a company's Initial Public Offering (IPO), when shares are first offered to the public. An IPO is the way most companies get a public listing on the stock market. However, companies often go to market again and again to issue/sell more shares, after their IPO. These secondary offerings don't make as many headlines as an IPO, but they are typical-enough occurrences in markets. When a company goes back to the market to raise additional funds (perhaps to fund expansion), the value of the company's existing shares that are being traded is a good indicator of what they may expect to get for a secondary offering of shares. A company about to raise money desires a higher share price, because that will permit them to issue less shares for the amount of money they need. If the share price drops, they would need to issue more shares for the same amount of money – and dilute existing owners' share of the overall equity further. Also, consider corporate acquisitions: When one company wants to buy another, instead of the transaction being entirely in cash (maybe they don't have that much in the bank!), there's often an equity component, which involves swapping shares of the company being acquired for new shares in the acquiring company or merged company. In that case, the values of the shares in the public marketplace also matter, to provide relative valuations for the companies, etc.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b8da6c7da960df18a9cd9ad196ab306b", "text": "Shareholders get to vote for the board, the board appoints the CEO. This makes the CEO care, which in turn makes everybody else working in the company care. Also, if the company wants to borrow money a good share price, as sign of a healthy company, gives them more favorable conditions from lenders. And some more points others already made.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c067f60aa6afa4f6133377c0af24b9eb", "text": "Fiduciary They are obligated by the rules of the exchanges they are listed with. Furthermore, there is a strong chance that people running the company also have stock, so it personally benefits them to create higher prices. Finally, maybe they don't care about the prices directly, but by being a good company with a good product or service, they are desirable and that is expressed as a higher stock price. Not every action is because it will raise the stock price, but because it is good for business which happens to make the stock more valuable.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c2f509bb12d11e490a71f1a66f327b36", "text": "Why do companies exist? Well, the corporate charter describes why the company exists. Usually the purpose is to enrich the shareholders. The owners of a company want to make money, in other words. There are a number of ways that a shareholder can make money off a stock: As such, maintaining the stock price and dividend payouts are generally the number one concern for any company in the long term. Most of the company's business is going to be directed towards making the company more valuable for a future buyout, or more valuable in terms of what it can pay its shareholders directly. Note that the company doesn't always need to be worried about the specifics of the day-to-day moves of the stock. If it keeps the finances in line - solid profits, margins, earnings growth and the like - and can credibly tell people that it's generally a valuable business, it can usually shrug off any medium-term blips as market craziness. Some companies are more explicitly long-term about things than others (e.g. Berkshire Hathaway basically tells people that it doesn't care all that much about what happens in the short term). Of course, companies are abstractions, and they're run by people. To make the people running the company worry about the stock price, you give them stock. Or stock options, or something like that. A major executive at a big company is likely to have a significant amount of stock. If the company does well, he does well; if it does poorly, he does poorly. Despite a few limitations, this is really a powerful incentive. If a company is losing a lot of money, or if its profits are falling so it's just losing a lot of its value as a business, the owners (stockholders) tend to get upset, and may vote in new management, or launch some sort of shareholder lawsuit. And, as previously noted, to raise funds, a company can also issue new shares to the market as a secondary offering as well (and they can issue fewer shares if the price is high - meaning that whatever the company is worth afterward, the existing owners own proportionally more of it).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "42bb3a0c76e833a229be7a2fa993e605", "text": "The fact you are asking this question, the number of up votes, uncovers the real cause of the banking crisis. Answers which mention that shareholders will fire a public company board are on the bottom. It is obvious that a company owners are interested in company value. And should have direct and easy impact on a directors board if management doesn't increase shareholders wealth. With large number of passive shareholders and current stock market system that impact is very limited. Hence your question. So bank directors, upper management aren't that interested in company value. They are mostly interested in theirs bonuses, their wealth increase, not shareholders. And that's the real problem of capitalism. Public companies slowly drift to function like companies in former socialistic countries. These is no owner, everything is owned by a nation.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fca9765a78f1d005b9358d9b54f078a0", "text": "The most significant reason is that if the board of directors of a company neglects the stock value, the stockholders will vote them out of their jobs.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8be15acb6b240661d6447a5c078a6934", "text": "The main reason is that a public company is owned by its share holders, and share holders would care about the price of the stock they are owning, therefore the company would also care, because if the price go down too much, share holders become angry and may vote to oust the company's management.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "74c58cb199f873d475e24b80e1003eb6", "text": "Overpriced shares: Cheaper to raise new capital through secondary share offerings or debt using shares as a security. Fends off hostile take overs, since the company is too dear. When a company is taken over it needs only one set of management. Top management of the company that is taken over loses their jobs - no one wants to lose their job. Shareholders love to see share price grow - sale brings them profit, secures jobs for company management. Shares are used as a currency during acquisitions, if company shares are overpriced that means they can buy another company on the cheap - paying with the overpriced shares. Undervalued shares: More expensive to raise additional capital through secondary share offerings - for the same amount of capital the management has to offer a bigger chunk of the company; have to offer bigger chunk of a company as a security as well. Makes company vulnerable to hostile take overs, company is undervalues - makes it an attractive bargain. Once the company is taken over top management will almost certainly lose jobs. Falling price makes shareholders unhappy - they will vote management out. Makes difficult to acquire other companies.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bbd20f7c83f683c9d6750e463c9f06b3", "text": "Aside of the other (mostly valid) answers, share price is the most common method of valuating the company. Here is a bogus example that will help you understand the general point: Now, suppose that Company A wants to borrow $20 Million from a bank... Not a chance. Company B? Not a problem. Same situation when trying to raise new funds for the market or when trying to sell the company or to acquire another", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d03319e7e10d7777ab0af425341562df", "text": "Originally, stocks were ownership in a company just like any other business- you expected to make a profit from your investment, which is what we call dividends to stock holders. Since these dividends had real value, the stock price was based on what this return rate was, factoring in what it might be expected to be in the future, etc. Nowdays many companies never issue any dividends, so you have to consider the full value of the company and what benefit could be gained by another company if it were to acquire it. the market will likely adjust the share price to factor in what the value of the company might be to an acquirer. But otherwise, some companies today trading at an astronimical price, and which nevers pays a dividend- chalk it up to market stupidity. In this investor'd mind, there is no logical reason for these prices, except based on the idea that someone else might pay you more for it later... for what reason? I can't figure it out. Take it back to it's roots and imagine pitching a new business idea to you uncle to invest in- it will make almost nothing compared to it's share price, and even what it does make it won't pay anything to him for his investment. Why wouldn't he just laugh at you?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6bb718a4b47000594f78c65fa8a33aee", "text": "Because it's a good indicator of how much their asset worth. In oversimplified example, wouldn't you care how much your house, car, laptop worth? Over the course of your life you might need to buy a bigger house, sell your car etc. to cope with your financial goal / situation. It's similar in company's case but with much more complexity.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "980204c5b6fc20d68d519e9373e89ba3", "text": "Investors are typically a part of the board of directors of the company. Because of their ownership in the company, they have a vested interest in its stock price. The same is true for management also in cases where they hold a certain percentage of equity in the company. Their incentives also get aligned to the stock price.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "b162c03324b8020cb7acdc8e7c8b3d0f", "text": "\"Stock returns cannot be evaluated on its own. You need to take into account inflation and the return of other investment vehicles. Over the long run, you want to earn more than your peers (ie inflation), or lose less than them. Stock lets you buy into the profits of a company managed by others. So the fundamental question is \"\"do those company managers make better decision than average person?\"\" Of course there are times when they make awful decisions (eg just before dotcom bubble), and sometimes the best decision is to close the business. But overall those people are much better educated, have higher IQ, more resourceful, etc, and so over long time and across all the companies, this is correct and hence the stock market premium.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "49f779c5fabf42933fb87c49daf79771", "text": "You would think that share prices is just a reflection of how well the company is doing but that is not always the case. Sometimes it reflects the investor confidence in the company more than the mere performance. So for instance if some oil company causes some natural disaster by letting one of there oil tankers crash into a coral reef then investor confidence my take a big hit and share prices my fall even if the bottom line of the company was not all that effected.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "39d9a34a9f738312aea33419fdb81e9e", "text": "The folks who hold stock are the legal owners of the company. If a majority of stock holders become unhappy with the management of a company they can fire the executives and put in new management, or they can direct the company to close its doors and sell off its assets. As a crude approximation, the stock holders are happier when the stock price goes up and unhappier when it goes down. Therefore, executives are highly motivated to drive the stock price up. A frequent criticism of corporate governence is that management can be so motivated to drive the stock price up, that they will take actions that drive the stock price up in the current year, even if undercuts the company in the long term.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d68fc2a7722d857c5ffbe80888669754", "text": "\"There are a LOT of reasons why institutional investors would own a company's stock (especially a lot of it). Some can be: The company is in one of the indices, especially big ones. Many asset management companies have funds that are either passive (track index) or more-or-less closely adhere to a benchmark, with the benchmark frequently being (based on/exactly) an index. As such, a stock that's part of an index would be heavily owned by institutional investors. Conclusion: Nothing definitive. Being included in an equity index is usually dependent on the market cap; NOT on intrinsic quality of the company, its fundamentals or stock returns. The company is considered a good prospect (growth or value), in a sector that is popular with institutional investors. There's a certain amount of groupthink in investing. To completely butcher a known IT saying, you don't get fired for investing in AAPL :) While truly outstanding and successful investors seek NON-popular assets (which would be undervalued), the bulk is likely to go with \"\"best practices\"\"... and the general rules for valuation and analysis everyone uses are reasonably similar. As such, if one company invests in a stock, it's likely a competitor will follow similar reasoning to invest in it. Conclusion: Nothing definitive. You don't know if the price at which those institutional companies bought the stock is way lower than now. You don't know if the stock is held for its returns potential, or as part of an index, or some fancy strategy you as individual investor can't follow. The company's technicals lead the algorithms to prefer it. And they feed off of each other. Somewhat similar in spirit to #2, except this time, it's algorithmic trading making decisions based on technicals instead of portfolio managers based on funamentals. Obviously, same conclusion applies, even more so. The company sold a large part of the stock directly to institutional investor as part of an offering. Sometimes, as part of IPO (ala PNC and BLK), sometimes additional capital raising (ala Buffett and BAC) Conclusion: Nothing definitive. That investor holds on to the investment, sometimes for reason not only directly related to stock performance (e.g. control of the company, or synergies). Also, does the fact that Inst. Own % is high mean that the company is a good investment and/or less risky? Not necessarily. In 2008, Bear Stearns Inst Own. % was 77%\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5bdf7691029954ac590ae6f26332d9b1", "text": "Well their money is in the company so it does matter to them. If I give a company $20k and see them blow through cash, throwing money at anything that seems like a business model, I'm going to get very concerned. You have the same issues at a private company, it's just that your shareholders are more heavily invested.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0620cbca97d934750faaf78e76922855", "text": "Aside from the market implications Victor and JB King mention, another possible reason is the dividends they pay. Usually, the dividends a company pays are dependent on the profit the company made. if a company makes less profit, the dividends turn out smaller. This might incite unrest among the shareholders, because this means that they get paid less dividends, which makes that share more likely to be sold, and thus for the price to fall.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "032c9a31fdd711d9aaacc419dfe99b75", "text": "\"Yes, the value of a stock is completely, 100% determined by what people are willing to pay for it in conjunction with what people who have it are willing to sell it for. If something really bad happened to a company, like their only factory burned to the ground, and the traders didn't care, then I guess, in that scenario, the value of the stock would not change. But you can spin all sorts of hypotheticals of that sort. If dogs could talk, would German Shepherds speak German? Etc. Any answer is pretty meaningless because the premise is wildly unlikely. As CQM notes, \"\"traders\"\" in this context means everyone who buys or sells stock. If you buy stock, that includes you. They're not some mystical cabal somewhere. If you see a stock listed at, whatever, $50, and you are not willing to pay more than $40 for it, then you refuse to buy, and so you tend to force the price down. If you're not a billionaire, then your impact on the market is tiny, but the market is made up of millions of people each with tiny influence. Note that all this is true not just of the stock market, but of every product on the market. A product is worth whatever the owner is willing to sell it for and people are willing to pay. This is what determines the price of everything from houses to toasters. It's a little theory I've invented that I like to call, \"\"the law of supply and demand\"\". :-)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4921512769ebe7b33f245d03c02caa32", "text": "from what i understand, which is not much, some companies use some of their own company shares as securitisation for loans. If the share price decreases, the security in the loan decreases, which means the company would need to find new capital. It can create a vicious cycle if the fall in share price is the result of operational concerns.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5f818a172800ab3e8c4068baf50271cc", "text": "The short answer to your question is yes. Company performance affects stock price only through investors' views. But note that selling for higher and lower prices when the company is doing well or poorly is not an arbitrary choice. A stock is a claim on the future cash flows of the firm, which ultimately come from its future profits. If the company is doing well, investors will likely expect that there will large cash flows (dividends) in the future and be willing to pay more to hold it (or require more to sell it). The price of a stock is equal what people think the future dividends are worth. If market participants started behaving irrationally, like not reacting to changes in the expected future cash flows, then arbitrageurs would make a ton of money trading against them until the situation was rectified.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "348c16d28dd5f13cc22835ed310e419a", "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.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c6cb4a956263e8a41ee3791e633b372f", "text": "Would you consider the owner of a company to be supporting the company? If you buy stock in the company you own a small part of that company. Your purchase also increases the share price, and thus the value of the company. Increased value allows the company to borrow more money to say expand operations. The affect that most individuals might have on share price is very very small. That doesn't mean it isn't the right thing for you to do if it is something you believe in. After all if enough people followed those same convictions it could have an impact on the company.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c9b670ef1275f6f9dab150477fbb3120", "text": "Why is the stock trading at only $5 per share? The share price is the perceived value of the company by people buying and selling the stock. Not the actual value of the company and all its assets. Generally if the company is not doing well, there is a perceived risk that it will burn out the money fast. There is a difference between its signed conditional sale and will get money and has got money. So in short, it's trading at $5 a share because the market doesn't feel like it's worth $12 per share. Quite a few believe there could be issues faced; i.e. it may not make the $12, or there will be additional obligations, i.e. employees may demand more layoff compensation, etc. or the distribution may take few years due to regulatory and legal hurdles. The only problem is the stock exchange states if the company has no core business, the stock will be suspended soon (hopefully they can release the $12 per share first). What will happen if I hold shares in the company, the stock gets suspended, and its sitting on $12 per share? Can it still distribute it out? Every country and stock markets have laid out procedures for de-listing a company and closing a company. The company can give $10 as say dividends and remaining later; or as part of the closure process, the company will distribute the balance among shareholders. This would be a long drawn process.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2ff23bc81836dd0f652e075dd748b3ab", "text": "\"For the same reason that people bet on different teams. Some think the Tigers will win, others thing the Yankees will win. They wager $5 on it. One of them wins, the other loses. In a short, one person bets that the stock goes down, the other bets that the stock goes up (or hold). You're basically saying \"\"I think this stock is going to hold it's value or go up. If I thought it would go down, like you do, I would sell it myself right now. Instead, I'll let you have it for a while because when I get it back I think I'll come out on top.\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9cd4ebc007e5e4e0e0ffeb192ed4576b", "text": "Companies are expected to make a profit, otherwise there is no point to their existence and no motivation for investment. That profit comes back to shareholders as growth and/or dividend. If a company is doing well and has a healthy profit to turn back into investment to facilitate increased future earnings, it increases shareholder equity and share price. If a company is doing well and has a healthy profit to pay out in dividend, it makes the shares more attractive to investors which pushes the price up. Either way, shares go up. Share prices drop when companies lose money, or there are market disturbances affecting all companies (recessions), or when individual companies fail. Averaged over all companies over the long term (decades), stocks can be reasonably expected to go up.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "871d6e76ecc2a5e80485fd4dc9f7ee9e", "text": "Two reasons are typically cited (I've heard these from Dave Ramsey): So I wouldn't refinance to a 15-year loan just for item 2, but would definitely look at it for the better interest rates.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "d4000cf9ecd349abeeb5bc37ecd296aa", "text": "\"I'm a senior majoring in accounting and management information systems. Here is a question I answered a while back about financial statements and employee retention. In the answer that I provided at the bottom it was to assess a company's ability to pay by use of ratios. Likewise, similar accounting methods need to be understood and implemented when assessing stocks(which is where I believe Mr. Buffet was going with this). As we can see the severity of the questions decreases, but if you can not answer question 3 then you should study accounting principles. So how much is enough just to get started? You will never have enough knowledge to start, period. You will have to continuously be learning, so start sooner than later. However you need neither economics or accounting knowledge if you were to learn technical analysis, many doubt the workings of this technique, but in my experience it is easier to learn and practise. A comment on @Veronica's post. Understanding economics and accounting are fundamental. Analysis, seeing trends, and copying are instinctual human traits that helped us evolve (we are very good at pattern recognition). Taking an intro economic and accounting course at a local community college is an excellent place to start when breaking the mold of pattern-thinking. You have to be critical in understanding what elements move a company's A/R in the statement of cash flows. Read. Literally, don't stop reading. Latest edition of of Kesio's accounting principles? Read it. Cover to cover. Tax policies on Section 874, 222, 534? Read it. Take a class, read a book, ask questions! Good Luck, \"\"Welcome to [the] Science [of Business], you're gonna like it here\"\" - Phil Plait\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "aadb42b2f8337e8f5a282e4d034362b2", "text": "From my experience you don't need knowledge of accounting to pick good stocks. The type of investing you are referring to is fundamental. This is finding out about the company, this websites should help you start off: http://en.tradehero.mobi/how-to-choose-a-stock-fundamental-analysis/ Investopedia will also be a useful website in techniques. A bit of knowledge in economics will be helpful in understanding how current affairs will affect a market, which will affect stock prices. However you need neither economics or accounting knowledge if you were to learn technical analysis, many doubt the workings of this technique, but in my experience it is easier to learn and practise. For example looking at charts from previous years it shows the last time there was a huge recession the dollar did well and commodities didn't. In this recession we are entering you can see the same thing happening. Read about the different techniques before limiting yourself to just looking at financial statements you may find a better technique suited to you, like these technical analysts: http://etfhq.com/blog/2013/03/02/top-technical-analysts/ Hope this helps.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "84684ca8001220b80db21a461e7b2e21", "text": "You won't be able to know the trading activity in a timely, actionable method in most cases. The exception is if the investor (individual, fund, holding company, non-profit foundation, etc) is a large shareholder of a specific company and therefore required to file their intentions to buy or sell with the SEC. The threshold for this is usually if they own 5% or greater of the outstanding shares. You can, however, get a sense of the holdings for some of the entities you mention with some sleuthing. Publicly-Traded Holding Companies Since you mention Warren Buffett, Berkshire Hathaway is an example of this. Publicly traded companies (that are traded on a US-based exchange) have to file numerous reports with the SEC. Of these, you should review their Annual Report and monitor all filings on the SEC's website. Here's the link to the Berkshire Hathaway profile. Private Foundations Harvard and Yale have private, non-profit foundations. The first place to look would be at the Form 990 filings each is required to file with the IRS. Two sources for these filings are GuideStar.org and the FoundationCenter.org. Keep in mind that if the private foundation is a large enough shareholder in a specific company, they, too, will be required to file their intentions to buy or sell shares in that company. Private Individuals Unless the individual publicly releases their current holdings, the only insight you may get is what they say publicly or have to disclose — again, if they are a major shareholder.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c9be0cb23f9aeab59aeb64fa9d46670c", "text": "\"To expand on the above, go to the \"\"Investor Relations\"\" part of the website if they're public, and take a look at how they explain themselves to their shareholders. You'll learn a lot very quickly about everything you'd need for the interview.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "29a40af24f93fca95608892442b874f3", "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.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4fb6acd2508554abfaf8439d0fc89a4a", "text": "\"There are many different kinds of SEC filings with different purposes. Broadly speaking, what they have in common is that they are the ways that companies publicly disclose information that they are legally required to disclose. The page that you listed gives brief descriptions of many types, but if you click through to the articles on individual types of filings, you can get more info. One of the most commonly discussed filings is the 10-K, which is, as Wikipedia says, \"\"a comprehensive summary of a company's financial performance\"\". This includes info like earnings and executive pay. One example of a form that some people believe has potential utility for investors is Form 4, which is a disclosure of \"\"insider trading\"\". People with a privileged stake in a company (executives, directors, and major shareholders) cannot legally buy or sell shares without disclosing it by filing a Form 4. Some people think that you can make use of this information in the sense that if, for instance, the CEO of Google buys a bunch of Twitter stock, they may have some reason for thinking it will go up, so maybe you should buy it too. Whether such inferences are accurate, and whether you can garner a practical benefit from them (i.e., whether you can manage to buy before everyone else notices and drives the price up) is debatable. My personal opinion would be that, for an average retail investor, readng SEC filings is unlikely to be useful. The reason is that an average retail investor shouldn't be investing in individual companies at all, but rather in mutual funds or ETFs, which typically provide comparable returns with far less risk. SEC filings are made by individual companies, so it doesn't generally help you to read them unless you're going to take action related to an individual company. It doesn't generally make sense to take action related to an individual company if you don't have the time and energy to read a large number of SEC filings to decide which company to take action on. If you have the time and energy to read a large number of SEC filings, you're probably not an average retail investor. If you are a wheeler dealer who plays in the big leagues, you might benefit from reading SEC filings. However, if you aren't already reading SEC filings, you're probably not a wheeler dealer who plays in the big leagues. That said, if you're a currently-average investor with big dreams, it could be instructive to read a few filings to explore what you might do with them. You could, for instance, allocate a \"\"play money\"\" fund of a few thousand dollars and try your hand at following insider trades or the like. If you make some money, great; if not, oh well. Realistically, though, there are so many people who make a living reading SEC filings and acting on them every day that you have little chance of finding a \"\"diamond in the rough\"\" unless you also make a living by doing it every day. It's sort of like asking \"\"Should I read Boating Monthly to improve my sailing skills?\"\" If you're asking because you want to rent a Hobie Cat and go for a pleasure cruise now and then, sure, it can't hurt. If you're asking because you want to enter the America's Cup, you can still read Boating Monthly, but it won't in itself meaningfully increase your chances of winning the America's Cup.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "953998066744ca70bd3d52152d186a3a", "text": "\"If you are interested in a career in algorithmic trading, I strongly encourage you to formally study math and computer science. Algorithmic trading firms have no need for employees with financial knowledge; if they did, they'd just be called \"\"trading\"\" firms. Rather, they need experts in machine learning, statistical modeling, and computer science in general. Of course there are other avenues of employment at an algorithmic trading firm, such as accounting, clearing, exchange relations, etc. If that's the sort of thing you're interested in, again you'll probably want a formal education in those areas as opposed to just reading about finance in the news. If you edit your question or add a comment below with information about your particular background, I could perhaps advise you in a bit more detail. ::edit:: Given your comment, I would say you have a fine academic background for the industry. When hiring mathematicians, firms care most about the ease with which you can explore and extract features from massive datasets (especially time series) regardless of what the dataset might represent. An intelligent firm will not care whether you arrive at their doorstep with zero finance knowledge; they will want to teach you everything from scratch anyway. Nonetheless, some domain knowledge could be helpful, but you're not going to get \"\"more\"\" of it from reading any mass market news source, whether you have to pay for it or not. That's because Some non-mass-market news sources in the industry are These are subscription-only and actually discuss real information that real professional investors care about. They are loaded with industry jargon, they're extremely opinionated, and (in my opinion) they're useless. I can't imagine trying to learn about the industry from them, but if you want to spend money for news in order to be exposed to the innards of the industry, then either of these is far better than the Financial Times. Despite requiring a subscription, the Financial Times still does not cover the technical details of professional trading. Instead of trying to learn from news, then, I would suggest some old favorites: and, above all else, Read everything in the navigation box on the right side under Financial Markets and Financial Instruments.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6f4952b14a70ff141f9cc6483f94d071", "text": "\"Publicly traded companies files 10-Ks with the SEC, searchable on the EDGAR system. If you want basic financial statement info then look for 10-Ks that are marked \"\"Interactive Data\"\", as for those the SEC has broken everything out by statement into standard formats. You could also use marketwatch which puts everything in financial statements into the same or as similar of categories as it can to make it easier to compare companies.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a9fbbddf99ada47cb3317b4673d6b8ca", "text": "This is fine, but I'd probably spend a moment introducing WACC and it's estimation. It's also useful to link up the enterprise value to share price, so just also mentioning the debt subtraction to get equity value and division by shares for price. Keep in mind you're usually given like a minute to answer this, so you can afford to be a bit more detailed in some parts.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c8272dc25995314578ce4b67916ebc6f", "text": "\"The basic equation taught in day one of accounting school is that Assets = Liabilities + Equity. My first point was that I looked at the actual financial statements published as of the end of the 2nd quarter 2017, and the total liabilities on their audited balance sheet were like $13 billion, not $20b. I don't know where the author got their numbers from. My second point: Debt usually needs to be paid on prearranged terms agreed upon by the debtor and the debtee, including interest, so it is important for a business to keep track of what they owe and to whom, so they can make timely payments. As long as they have the cash on hand to make payments plus whatever interest they owe, and the owners are happy with the total return on their investment, then it doesn't really matter how debt they have on the balance sheet. Remember the equation A=L+E. There are precisely two ways to finance a business that wants to acquire assets: liabilities and/or equity. The \"\"appropriate\"\" level of debt vs equity on a balance sheet varies wildly, and totally depends on the industry, size of the business, cash flow, personal preferences of the CEO, CFO, shareholders et al, etc. It gets way more detailed and complicated than that obviously, but the point is that looking at debt alone is a meaningless metric. This is corporate finance and accounting 101, so you can probably find tons of great articles and videos if you want to learn more.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b4f5cb01789a101dda033ab4b2e29e27", "text": "They don't need to know how to actually write code, but they should understand the process of writing code. I don't expect a CEO to understand each line in the chain of the distribution centers but I do expect them to understand the process enough to make a logical decision. CEO's don't need to be able to write code, but they should understand what it takes to get that code to a production environment and what risks are involved with different types of code pushes.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4f86a8a4bb3fa8d170e7d2cb5f67b104", "text": "Thanks for your thorough reply. Basically, I found a case study in one of my old finance workbooks from school and am trying to complete it. So it's not entirely complicated in the sense of a full LBO or merger model. That being said, the information that they provide is Year 1 EBITDA for TargetCo and BuyerCo and a Pro-Forma EBITDA for the consolidated company @ Year 1 and Year 4 (expected IPO). I was able to get the Pre-Money and Post-Money values and the Liquidation values (year 4 IPO), as well as the number of shares. I can use EBITDA to get EPS (ebitda/share in this case) for both consolidated and stand-alone @ Year 1, but can only get EPS for consolidated for all other years. Given the information provided. One of the questions I have is do I do anything with my liquidation values for an accretion/dilution analysis or is it all EPS?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "46ec8b3f73e4ceaa7352199d3761af78", "text": "I work in corporate finance at a large bank. Here's my opinion. I'd say learn SQL, Tableau, and OBIEE first in that order. I do know Java but have never personally used it at work. I know some people that do and Java is usually the language of choice for banks. It's really good to know but it's rare that a company would expect an accounting or finance person to use it. But almost every team in corporate finance will use at least one of the other three. Most finance / accounting people don't take the time to learn these. So most teams have one or two hot shots that do most of the work. Also, you can learn those three easily over the summer if not sooner. They aren't very difficult. Java is more complicated so maybe take your time learning that after the other ones.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bc6465a444d8872f0a0363390dbde207", "text": "\"Good ones, no there are not. Go to a bookstore and pick up a copy of \"\"The Intelligent Investor.\"\" It was last published in 1972 and is still in print and will teach you everything you need to know. If you have accounting skills, pick up a copy of \"\"Security Analysis\"\" by Benjamin Graham. The 1943 version was just released again with a 2008 copyright and there is a 1987 version primarily edited by Cottle (I think). The 1943 book is better if you are comfortable with accounting and the 1987 version is better if you are not comfortable and feel you need more direction. I know recent would seem better, but the fact that there was a heavy demand in 2008 to reprint a 1943 book tells you how good it is. I think it is in its 13th printing since 2008. The same is true for the 72 and 87 book. Please don't use internet tutorials. If you do want to use Internet tutorials, then please just write me a check now for all your money. It will save me effort from having to take it from you penny by penny because you followed bad advice and lost money. Someone has to capture other people's mistakes. Please go out and make money instead. Prudence is the mother of all virtues.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "49d00cb08b23d1d2103174fcafd21f4c", "text": "If you are refering to company's financial reports and offerings, the required source for companies to disclose the information is the SGX website (www.sgx.com) under the Company Disclosure tab. This includes annual statements for the last 5 years, prospectus for any shares/debentures/buy back/etc which is being offered, IPO offers and shareholders meetings. You may also find it useful to check the Research section of the SGX website where some of the public listed companies have voluntarily allowed independent research firms to monitor their company for a couple of years and produce a research report. If you are referring to filings under the Companies Act, these can be found at the Accounting and Regulatory Authority (ACRA) website (www.acra.gov.sg) and you can also purchase extracts of specific filings under the ACRA iShop. To understand the Singapore public listing system and the steps to public listing, you may find it useful to purchase one of the resource documents available for Singapore law, finance, tax and corporate secretaryship which are sold by CCH (www.cch.com.sg). Specifically for public listing the Singapore Annotated Listing Manual may help. It is common practice for companies here to employ law firms and research firms to do the majority of this research instead of doing it themselves which I one of the reasons this information is online but perhaps not so visible. I hope I have understood your question correctly!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1215709f7759651dfa4fa316b87bc917", "text": "The websites of the most publicly traded companies publish their quarterly and annual financials. Check the investor relations sections out at the ones you want to look at.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7c7cd4dfefeb4623e8da5beb83ee96ab", "text": "There are some economic signs as there are in all economic and business cycles, such as interest rates rising. However, a more effective way is to actually look at price action itself. The definition of an uptrend is higher highs followed by higher lows. The definition of a downtrend is lower lows followed by lower highs. So if you are looking to invest for the long term you can look at the weekly or even the monthly chart of the market say over the past 10, 15 or 20 years. Using these definitions on say the S&P500 if the price continues to make higher highs and higher lows then stay in the market. If the price makes a lower high than the previous high, then this is a warning sign that the trend may be about to end. The trend has not broken yet but it is a warning sign that it could be ending soon. If the price makes a higher low next followed by a higher high, then the trend continues and you just need to keep an eye on things. If, however, the price makes a lower low after the lower high this is a signal that the uptrend is over and you should get out of the market. If the price makes a lower low directly after a higher high, then be cautious and wait for confirmation that the uptrend is over. If you then get a lower high this is confirmation that the uptrend is over, you would then sell if prices drop below the previous low. If you invest in individual shares then you should keep an eye on the charts for the index and individual shares as well. The index chart will give you an indication if the uptrend is over for the whole market, then you can be more cautious in regards to the individual shares. You can then plan exit points on each individual share if their trends are broken too. If you have stop losses employed and the trend reverses on the index, this would be a good time to tighten your stop losses on individual shares. You can then buy back into the market when you determine that the downtrend is broken and prices start to show higher highs and higher lows again. Will there be occasions when the uptrend reverses and then after a short period starts trending up again, yes there might be, but the worse that will happen is that you pay a bit of extra brokerage to get out and then back into the market, and you might have to pay some capital gains tax on any profits made. But remember no one ever went broke making a profit. The most important thing to remember when investing is to conserve and protect your capital. I would rather pay some extra brokerage and some capital gains tax than see my portfolio drop by 50% or more, then take 5 years or more to recover. And remember, paying tax is a good thing, it means you made money. If you don't want to pay any tax it means you will never make any profits, because if you make profits you will have to pay tax one day.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "1b4e473675196ea73e28c4a46e3d696f", "text": "You're lending the money to your business by paying for it directly. The company accounts must reflect a credit (the amount you lend to it) and a debit (what it then puts that loan towards). It's fairly normal for a small(ish) owner-driven company to reflect a large loan-account for the owners. For example, if you have a room at home dedicated for the business it is impractical to pay rent directly via the company. The rental agreement is probably in your name, you pay the rent, and you reconcile it with the company later. You could even charge your company (taxable) interest on this loan. When you draw down the loan from the company you reverse this, debit your loan account and credit the company (paying off the debt). As far as tracking that expenditure, simply handle those third-party invoices in the normal way and file them for reference.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3ab074c9108274b749a78047bc2eec8f", "text": "\"Journal entry into Books of company: 100 dr. expense a/c 1 200 dr. expense a/c 2 300 dr. expanse a/c 3 // cr. your name 600 Each expense actually could be a total if you don´t want to itemise, to save time if you totaled them on a paper. The paper is essentually an invoice. And the recipts are the primary documents. Entry into Your journal: dr. Company name // cr. cash or bank You want the company to settle at any time the balce is totaled for your name in the company books and the company name in your books. They should be equal and the payment reverses it. Or, just partially pay. Company journal: dr. your name // cr. cash or bank your journal: dr. cash or bank // cr. company name Look up \"\"personal accounts\"\" for the reasoning. Here is some thing on personal accounts. https://books.google.com/books?id=LhPMCgAAQBAJ&pg=PT4&dq=%22personal+account%22+double+entry&hl=es-419&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22personal%20account%22%20double%20entry&f=false\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "6d0884103408e571b9a1cd40123973b7", "text": "\"There is no \"\"standard\"\" way for personal accounting. However, GNUCash default accounts set includes \"\"Expense: Adjustment\"\". It is usually used by the community for reconciliation of unknown small money lost.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7be3594ce50f7ab25bb21d8987af4585", "text": "I've done several deals in excess of that amount. However, I am confused what you are looking for exactly. Typically those amounts are syndicated and presented via a pitch deck to investors to secure financing. Is an example pitch deck what you are looking for? If not, are you looking for the actual legal agreement? Or are you looking for the credit memo? Think I can point you in the right direction either way. Best chance to find what you are looking for is to check comparable companies investor relations materials and sec filings.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6f35493317b0fa9767a0827ede4a4505", "text": "I appreciate it. I didn't operate under selling the asset year five but other than that I followed this example. I appreciate the help. These assignments are just poorly laid out. Financial management also plays on different calculation interactions so it is difficult for me to easily identify the intent at times. Thanks again.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c6fa632a4fe912a3d78b7a6592e82079", "text": "\"I wrote a little program one time to try to do this. I think I wrote it in Python or something. The idea was to have a list of \"\"projected expenses\"\" where each one would have things like the amount, the date of the next transaction, the frequency of the transaction, and so on. The program would then simulate time, determining when the next transaction would be, updating balances, and so on. You can actually do a very similar thing with a spreadsheet where you basically have a list of expenses that you manually paste in for each month in advance. Simply keep a running balance of each row, and make sure you don't forget any transactions that should be happening. This works great for fixed expenses, or expenses that you know how much they are going to be for the next month. If you don't know, you can estimate, for instance you can make an educated guess at how much your electric bill will be the next month (if you haven't gotten the bill yet) and you can estimate how much you will spend on fuel based on reviewing previous months and some idea of whether your usage will differ in the next month. For variable expenses I would always err on the side of a larger amount than I expected to spend. It isn't going to be possible to budget to the exact penny unless you lead a very simple life, but the extra you allocate is important to cushion unexpected and unavoidable overruns. Once you have this done for expenses against your bank account, you can see what your \"\"low water mark\"\" is for the month, or whatever time period you project out to. If this is above your minimum, then you can see how much you can safely allocate to, e.g. paying off debt. Throwing a credit card into the mix can make things a bit more predictable in the current month, especially for unpredictable amounts, but it is a bit more complicated as now you have a second account that you have to track that has to get deducted from your first account when it becomes due in the following month. I am assuming a typical card where you have something like a 25 day grace period to pay without interest along with up to 30 days after the expense before the grace period starts, depending on the relationship between your cut-off date and when the actual expense occurs.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d8b78f45c8342b28a922582638a4e9e4", "text": "\"Gail Vaz-Oxlade from the television show Til Debt Do Us Part has a great interactive budget worksheet that helps you set up a \"\"jar\"\" or envelope system for each month based on your income and fixed expenses. We have used this successfully in the past. What we found most useful was, as others have said, writing everything down, keeping receipts, and thus being accountable and aware of our spending.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "998c6bb64e219b1c2a9fa3c93102ef7f", "text": "If you were a business, all your assets would have a dollar value, so when you sold them you'd decrease the amount of assets by that amount and increase in cash, and if there was a profit on the sale it would go in as income, if there was loss it would count as a cost (or a loss)... so if there was a profit it would increase Equity, a loss then it would decrease Equity. Since it's not really worthwhile doing a estimated cost for everything that you have, I'd just report it as income like you are doing and let the amount of equity increase proportionately. So, implicitly you always had roughly that amount of equity, but some of it was in the form of assets, and now you're liquidating those assets so the amount shows up in GnuCash. When you buy new things you might sell later, you could consider adding them as assets to keep track of this explicitly (but even then you have problems-- the price of things changes with time and you might not want to keep up with those price changes, it's a lot of extra work for a family budget) -- for stuff you already have it's better to treat things as you are doing and just treat the money as income-- it's easier and doesn't really change anything-- you always had that in equity, some of it was just off the books and now you are bringing it into the books.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bed8b2d05e6186d99205cd74037190f1", "text": "Ok well in that case here are my thoughts. Its been a while since I've done this type of school work so hope it's right/helpful. AR Oustanding = Avg AR / (credit sales/Operating Cycle*) = 35 *I'm guessing they didn't give you sales for the year or else I would divide by 365 but since you mentioned operating cycle I'm assuming thats the sales number you were given. So you want to divide the sales by 50 and then times it by the 35. Should give you the average AR. Inventory - I really don't remember having to calculate this so I'm just thinking logically here. You should be able to take COGS divide by the days in the period then times it by In Invetory. So = (COGS/Operating Cycle)* In Inventory = (COGS/50)*15 Accounts Payable....man, I'm afraid to drive you in the wrong direction on this one. Avg Accounts Payable/(COGS/Operating Cycle) = 40 Plug in COGS, divide by the operating cycle, 50 then times by 40, the days vendor credit.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "efde1ab1a9035da2874810c95db67d9e", "text": "\"I think you're on the right track. Your #2 journal entry is incorrect. It should be (I usually put the debit entry on top, but I followed your formatting) I'm assuming your employer uses an accountable reimbursement plan (reimbursing you when you turn in your payment bill/receipts). This is not salary. Reimbursements under the accountable plan in the US are not taxed as income. If you think about it though, \"\"phone expense\"\" isn't really your phone expense. So, instead of #1 entry, you could make an account receivable, or other current asset account, maybe call it Reimbursables - cellphone, and debit this account, and credit your cash account. When you receive the $30 back, you will reverse the entries on the day of payment. If you do it this way, you should be able to see a list of receivables outstanding (I'm not too familiar with GNUCash but I'm sure it has this type of report).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "052392f5d66b263d95bf4d5e2838e319", "text": "\"Equity does not represent production divisions in a company (i.e. chocolate, strawberry, and vanilla does not make sense). In Sole proprietorship, equity represents 1 owner. In Partnership, equity has at least two sub-accounts, namely Partner 1 and Partner 2. In Corporations, equity may have Common Stockholders and Preferred Stockholders, or even different class of shares for insiders and angel investors. As you can see, equity represents who owns the company. It is not what the company does or manufactures. First and foremost, define the boundary of the firm. Are your books titled \"\"The books of the family of Doe\"\", \"\"The books of Mr & Mrs Doe\"\", or \"\"The books of Mr & Mrs Doe & Sons\"\". Ask yourself, who \"\"owns\"\" this family. If you believe that a marriage is perpetual until further notice then it does not make any sense to constantly calculate which parent owns the family more. In partnership, firm profits are attributed to partner's accounts using previously agreed ratio. For example, (60%/40% because Partner 1 is more hard working and valuable to the firm. Does your child own this family? Does he/she have any rights to use the assets, to earn income from the assets, to transfer the assets to others, or to enforce private property rights? If they don't have a part of these rights, they are certainly NOT part of Equity. So what happens to the expenses of children if you follow the \"\"partnership\"\" model? There are two ways. The first way is to attribute the Loss to the parents/family since you do not expect the children to repay. It is an unrecoverable loss written off. The second way is to create a Debtor(Asset) account to aggregate all child expense, then create a separate book called \"\"The books Children 1\"\", and classify the expense in that separate book. I advise using \"\"The family of Doe\"\" as the firm's boundary, and having 1 Equity account to simplify everything. It is ultimately up to you to decide the boundaries.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b27e71a404f46fc0845924799db1fdac", "text": "\"In double-entry bookkeeping, no transaction is ever negative. You only deal in positive numbers. We \"\"simulate\"\" negative numbers by calling numbers debits and credits, where one is the negative of the other. Only a balance can be negative. In this case, Income is a credit account. That means that things that increase your balance are credits and things that reduce your balance are debits. So a gift from grandma is a credit. It's a positive number, and you write it in the credit column. You pretty much never subtract from Income except to correct a mistake. Assets, like a checking account, are debit accounts. Increases are debits and decreases are credits. You routinely have both debits and credits on a checking account, i.e. you put money in and you take money out. Every transaction affects (at least) two accounts: one with a debit and one with a credit. So in this case, the gift from grandma credits income and debits checking. Buying food credits checking and debits expenses.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f69a7f2f8a1c722e5a19a4cc9862faeb", "text": "You can fairly simply make a spreadsheet in your favorite spreadsheet application (or in Google Docs if you want portability). I like to make an overview page that shows how much I take in per month and what fixed bills come out of that, then break the remaining total into four to get a weekly budget. Then, I make one page per month with four columns (one per week), with each row being a category. Sum the categories at the bottom, and subtract from your weekly total: voila, a quick reference of how much you can spend that week without going over budget. I then make a page for each month that lists what I bought and how much I spent on it, so I can trace where my money's gone; the category total is just a summation of the items from that page that belong in that category. Once you have a system, stop checking your bank balance except to ensure your paycheck is going in alright. Use the spreadsheet to determine how much you can spend at any time. Then make sure you pay off everything on the card before the end of the month so you don't incur interest.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b288f4246d6d89e0c58cf716df4993bd", "text": "\"$500, this is called \"\"cash basis\"\" accounting. A large company might handle it otherwise, counting shipments/billings as revenue. Not you. Yet.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6da3ec1ab9296aa05074dbbc608a1c5c", "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.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e1e8de1e86545e7b11ad859682abc36d", "text": "\"What you are describing is a Chart of Accounts. It's a structure used by accountants to categorise accounts into sub-categories below the standard Asset/Liability/Income/Expense structure. The actual categories used will vary widely between different people and different companies. Every person and company is different, whilst you may be happy to have a single expense account called \"\"Lunch\"\", I may want lots of expense accounts to distinguish between all the different restaurants I eat at regularly. Companies will often change their chart of accounts over time as they decide they want to capture more (or less) detail on where a particular type of Expense is really being spent. All of this makes any attempt to create a standard (in the strict sense) rather futile. I have worked at a few places where discussions about how to structure the chart of accounts and what referencing scheme to use can be surprisingly heated! You'll have to come up with your own system, but I can provide a few common recommendations: If you're looking for some simple examples to get started with, most personal finance software (e.g. GnuCash) will offer to create an example chart of accounts when you first start a session.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e579c480f632018d2e79008cd1ccaa4b", "text": "Line one shows your 1M, a return with a given rate, and year end withdrawal starting at 25,000. So Line 2 starts with that balance, applies the rate again, and shows the higher withdrawal, by 3%/yr. In Column one, I show the cumulative effect of the 3% inflation, and the last number in this column is the final balance (903K) but divided by the cumulative inflation. To summarize - if you simply get the return of inflation, and start by spending just that amount, you'll find that after 20 years, you have half your real value. The 1.029 is a trial and error method, as I don't know how a finance calculator would handle such a payment flow. I can load the sheet somewhere if you'd like. Note: This is not exactly what the OP was looking for. If the concept is useful, I'll let it stand. If not, downvotes are welcome and I'll delete.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "353f69910c12dc261482d6363c090c09", "text": "\"I'd interpret it as \"\"Net Worth\"\" reached 1M where \"\"net worth\"\" = assets - liabilities.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b578b95c650670c315a872e8e4e4fe71", "text": "I've not heard it used in any way other than one's net worth reaching a million. No 30 yr old lawyer brags that his cumulative income just passed $1M because he may not have saved a dime of it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "98ddd1dc09381088b4b6ac1ea095b6dc", "text": "When people are crowing about their achievements, they often take liberties with those achievements. Vitalik's interpretation -- net worth, is probably what you would naturally come to mind. But when someone is bragging, that could mean anything -- $1M of total revenue.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "e0e5f5aca6fddbf5b3a1fdc36ebf444f", "text": "As an advertising slogan, it generally implies saving monthly into an investment account. If you do pay yourself first, basically making saving/investing part of your budget, the intent is that you won't get to the end of the month with nothing left to save, because you will have already done it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "550ea7c1e76b90fbb453e6ab1d1a4a76", "text": "I once had worked for Koch Industries. I attended a meeting in which Charles Koch said 'do well so that you can do good'. I like that philosophy. It means make money (even if it is from 'bad' companies) so that you have the means (money) to do good things for others. Bill Gates has made money and is now trying to do good with it. You have better control of how your money is used if you manage it yourself. If you let some faceless company manage it you are never quite sure that they are really helping others.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1e4547887ae030e496a7dc8cde9d6191", "text": "\"I'd ask what your goal is. I was definitely on the path, and for one reason: to make piles of money. After some years in I decided to jump shit and get an MBA. Then the market went into freefall. Guys who paid their dues got fucked huge. Finance isn't the only way to get rich. It's one way, and it seems like the \"\"easy\"\" way. Do x-y-z and jump through the hoops and you are on the path. I'd suggest that if the money is really your true motivation, then there are other ways.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "faf2af9aef0c7e879950338c52e1ccf0", "text": "10k in taser stock at $1.00 per share made those who held into the hundreds per share made millions. But think about the likelihood of you owning a $1 stock and holding it past $10.00. They (taser millionaires) were both crazy and lucky. A direct answer, better off buying a lottery ticket. Stocks are for growing wealth not gaining wealth imho. Of course there are outliers though. To the point in the other answer, if it was repeatable the people teaching the tricks (if they worked) would make much more if they followed their own advice if it worked. Also, if everyone tells you how good gold is to buy that just means they are selling to get out. If it was that good they would be buying and not saying anything about it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9752468477b80a382ab4d26802656041", "text": "Stay in school, learn everything you can, and spend as little money as possible. And realize that the chances of you dropping out and becoming a millionaire are much lower than the chances of you staying in school and becoming a millionaire. You're unlikely to be a good investor if you make bets with negative expected payoffs.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7f7944fde3b721971bc5d1cc75f7c3f7", "text": "\"&gt; Because: people with lots of money don’t spend it. They just sit on it, like Smaug in his cave. Do they actually sit on cash - or are those \"\"money\"\" invested into factories and companies? When you have more \"\"money\"\" than you can spend in a lifetime, those are not the same \"\"money\"\" you had then you were struggling day by day - they are power and control over livelihoods of others, and not your own livelihood... People with money are like politicians that no one voted for but that were elected nonetheless.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "edc0718cfe98e4cb618686f18277840e", "text": "Easy. Start with 2 millions and lose only one. Jokes aside, if you want a million USD, you should be asking yourself how you can produce products or services worth $5 millions. (expect the extra to be eaten up by taxes, marketing, sales, workforce...) If by investment you mean making risky bets on the stock market, you might have a better time going to Las Vegas. On the other hand, if by investment you mean finding something that will produce $$$ and getting involved, it's a different matter.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3947d4b6cc5d4b0c7caa6eab42a99285", "text": "Keep in mind that it's a cliche statement used as non-controversial filler in articles, not some universal truth. When you were young, did you mom tell you to eat your vegetables because children are starving in Ethiopia? This is the personal finance article equivalent of that. Generally speaking, the statement as an air of truth about it. If you're living hand to mouth, you probably shouldn't be thinking about the stock market. If you're a typical middle class individual investor, you probably shouldn't be messing around with very speculative investments. That said, be careful about looking for some deeper meaning that just isn't there. If the secret of investment success is hidden in that statement, I have a bridge to sell you that has a great view of Brooklyn.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "729b6bfef28bbe7ae292e6b08c4b0f67", "text": "\"My family instilled in me early on that hard work was important, and the output of that work was its reward. My grandparents really made in impression with me about telling the truth and being fair (probably after I was busted for lying and cheating about something) -- I remember my grandfather talking about the solem trust associated with shaking hands over something. I remember opening a savings account at school on bank day and being really excited about the interest accruing... but my folks never really allowed us to spend it on toys or other stuff. I didn't really think about money at all until I was probably about 10 or 11, when I started watching \"\"Wall Street Week\"\" on PBS with my dad on Friday night and bombarding him with dozens of questions. Then games like Sim City really got me going... my grandmother was always amazed that I was talking about bonding construction projects. I think that before 10 or so, kids needn't concern themselves with money, but should understand responsibility, the rewards that come from working hard, and the consequences for not doing so.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4d441c8aa7c117f3fdb6f383769cc1fd", "text": "Millionaire, Shmillionaire! Let's do this calculation Bruno Mars style (I wanna be a Billionaire...) If my calculations are correct, in the above scenario, at age 80, you would have more than a billion in the bank, after taxes.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "96387f55bb095db0193bdbe95e7499a8", "text": "\"The \"\"coin flip\"\" argument made in the article is absurd. My old boss had a saying, \"\"the harder I work, the luckier I get.\"\" He came from nothing, worked maniacally to become an Olympian, and later in life became a multi-millionaire. This is a common story among self-made people. I DO think that the rich have significant advantages: education, contact networks, access to startup capital, etc. These are very helpful, but don't assure success. Their lack is not insurmountable by the ambitious. I also think those advantages have expanded in recent years. Monetary policy has resulted in a large pool of investable funds being made available to to the financial sector, who earn high incomes with rent-seeking tactics.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a364f95e92656a2acfcb34c0bc1a8f61", "text": "&gt;It's called lacking empathy and compassion. Or people like to keep their hard earned money. Don't paint somebody as greedy for trying to keep what they have earned. &gt;Until you've walked a mile in another person's shoes, it's hard to know what they've gone through and what they battle. Everybody faces their own challenges in life, successful people don't let them become excuses.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8add9881577b24388f6d952cf3f5936a", "text": "To me, the most important thing for young people to learn about personal finance is the connection between service and income. Most, rightly look for a way to earn money and advance the lifestyle of their home life. How does one do that? Grinding it out in a 9-5 does not seem attractive while living the lifestyles of those on TV would be awesome. The temptation is to try all these tricks to get money, but absent from their plan is how they serve their fellow man in order to receive that money. Stars, like the Kardashians are a marketing machine despite the carefree life displayed on the TV. They have served many budding companies well by selling their products to certain demographics. Most young people do not make that connection. So they try things like trading Forex, gold or whatever the latest thing is. It does not work as there is no service to their fellow man. They get a job at a fast food chain and complain about their pay in accordance with their work. Well sure, but again they are serving such few people that one can only expect a small income. The better and more people one can serve, in general, the higher a person's income.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e1829dd92aa33c3d155a72c3685f90f4", "text": "Yeah $1M is a number that a very, very select number of programmers are making. It's not really within the realm of possibility for the average person - you have to be a combination of obsessed, brilliant, and lucky to have coordinated with the right people. Now $100-200k? Yeah, definitely.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5dbd5c9cf20085e1abc6c4cbdc78b67a", "text": "\"There could be a few reasons for this, my first guess is that you didn't report the distribution on your return (indicated on line 15 of your 1040, pictured below), the IRS got a copy of the 1099-R, and assumes it's all taxable (or maybe the 1099-R indicates the full amount is taxable). If a 1099-R doesn't have an amount populated for 'taxable amount' it doesn't mean the distribution isn't taxable, and without any indication that it's not taxable the IRS assumes it is. It's not taxable if it's a withdrawal of your contribution. Here's a snippet from How to Calculate the Taxable Amount of an IRA Withdrawal: Withdrawals from a Roth IRA Since Roth IRA contributions are made on an after-tax basis, qualified withdrawals are completely tax-free. A \"\"qualified\"\" Roth withdrawal includes the following: If your 1099-R indicates a taxable amount, then you might need to contact the issuer to understand why. If it does not indicate a taxable amount and you failed to record the distribution on your return, you just need to file an amended return that shows the distribution on line 15a and shows no taxable amount on 15b along with a completed Form 8606. You may not need additional documentation to support of your claim that it's not taxable, but if you do it would be any statement showing that your contributions over the years exceed your withdrawal. What a 1040 with a non-taxable IRA withdrawal would show: Note: There'd also be a completed Form 8606, the 1040 lines above just show if it was entered in. The easiest path forward is probably to file an amended return using turbotax since you filed with them originally. I haven't dealt with an IRS letter in a few years, I can't recall if you need to contact them or simply file the amended return, but they're pretty good about including instructions so the letter probably indicates what you need to do. Don't delay in taking action, as the IRS can and will garnish wages if they are owed (or think they are owed) money. Update: OP contacted IRS and they didn't even want an amended return, just the completed Form 8606, so it's worth calling the IRS first with these letters.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "3827477ba1172db0d3329c2b2add73d8", "text": "Two different takes on an answer; the net-loss concept you mentioned and a core-business concept. If a store is actually a net-loss, and anybody is willing to buy it, it may well make sense to sell it. Depending on your capital value invested, and how much it would take you to make it profitable, it may be a sound business decision to sell the asset. The buyer of the asset is of course expecting for some reason to make it not a net loss for them (perhaps they have other stores in the vicinity and can then share staff or stock somehow). The core-business is a fuzzier concept. Investors seem to go in cycles, like can like well-diversified companies that are resilient to a market downturn in one sector, but then they also like so-called pure-play companies, where you are clear on what you are owning. To try an example (which is likely not the case here), lets say that Sunoco in 5% of its stores had migrated away from a gas-station model to a one-stop-gas-and-repairs model. Therefore they had to have service bays, parts, and trained staff at those locations. These things are expensive, and could be seen as not their area of expertise (selling gas). So as an investor, if I want to own gas stations, I don't want to own a full service garage, so perhaps I invest in somebody else. Once they sell off their non-core assets, they free up capital to do what they know best. It is at least one possible explanation.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "02c97ee4d736684a28ad22e6d03a7610", "text": "\"I'd like to modify the \"\"loss\"\" idea that's been mentioned in the other two answers. I don't think a retail location needs to be losing money to be a candidate for sale. Even if a retail location is not operating at a loss, there may be incentive to sell it off to free up cash for a better-performing line of business. Many large companies have multiple lines of business. I imagine Sunoco makes money a few ways including: refining the gas and other petroleum products, selling those petroleum products, selling gas wholesale to franchised outlets or other large buyers, licensing their brand to franchised outlets, selling gas and convenience items direct to consumers through its own corporate-owned retail outlets, etc. If a company with multiple lines of business sees a better return on investment in certain businesses, it may make sense to sell off assets in an under-performing business in order to free up the capital tied up by that business, and invest the freed-up capital in another business likely to perform better. So, even \"\"money making\"\" assets are sometimes undesirable relative to other, better performing assets. Another case in which it makes sense to sell an asset that is profitable is when the market is over-valuing it. Sell it dear, and buy it back cheap later.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8dae2b1de834fac94d62345e4c3d8c95", "text": "Maybe the location isn't yet, but will soon become a new loss. For example older soon out of warranty equipment, new tax laws in the locality soon to take affect or even just declining sales over the past periods of measurement. Perhaps labor disputes or other locality issues make running the store difficult. There is the possibility that the land the location occupies is worth more sold to the new big box retailer than it will be in the next 10 years of operation. In some cases, companies want to have a ton of cash on hand, or would sell assets to pay off debt.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "2a5024d5665ea91912abe62458c537b5", "text": "Operationally they wouldn't be too bad off if not for their debt. With declining sales and powerful competitors, they lack the cash flow to both compete and pay off their debt as it matures and while they've been able to refinance so far the doom and gloom outlook that some investors have right now on retailers makes it harder. If they could restructure they would come out in pretty decent shape though.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "008a497ad9c98d5e2cc27a2cebf27993", "text": "Unless other people believe you have a reason for selling at a lower price, your sale probably has no lasting effect at all on the market. Of course, if people see you dump a few million dollars' worth of shares at a discount, they may be inclined to believe you have a reason. But if you just sell a few, they will conclude the reason is just that you needed cash in a hurry.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "816b4e320cb604a0666d5bab4d28eded", "text": "Hmm. I appreciate some peoples margins are tighter than others, but in 10 years we've never been so close to the wire that these decisions could significantly effect (or possibly affect?) the viability of the company as a whole. In that case it would be morally right to favour the greater good of the majority, sure.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3e11be6d386ddb060699e6a8cf39036c", "text": "retail has been in a slump for quite a few years now. these companies are short on cash, cut costs, take on debt to pay manufacturers and fund operating costs, products do not sell, short on cash, cut costs, take on debt again etc go through this cycle enough times everyone starts to look for exits - banks want to get paid on the loans and retailers want to lower the debt service. this usually ends up at the door step of a PE shop these retailers are usually over levered by the time PE ships are involved. PE adds its own tranches of debt and off to the races the retailers go many retailers are figuring out consumers just are not interested in buying from them, no cash, cut costs, cannot service debt, Ch 11, likely end up on the doorsteps of another PE shop", "title": "" }, { "docid": "13d5c8d1757f4113f3d00149c7023f95", "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.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a6bfe35631d599a853bccbe75a748e13", "text": "Most larger corporations need to focus on the bottom line to appease their current and prospective investors. It can actually be quite the vicious cycle, and why people would be better off as a whole if we had more mom and pop stores.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9bd50818e7d46061b492c57025a9eb2b", "text": "Is there some evidence in the article or elsewhere that the purpose is to kill off these competitors rather than simply to compete? Competition is normally considered good in these kinds of situations, as it cranks out better efficiencies (for which an argument can be made here), but taking actions specifically for the purpose of killing off competition is not good because it reduces the pressures on efficiencies. Killing off competition by artificially lowering prices below real market value is considered dumping, but I don't really see evidence of that in the article. Is there some hidden somewhere or is the article just trying to make a point without any basis? I do have concerns about the Amazon play, but sensationalist or bias-driven reporting won't help me puzzle through them.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "da781e6cc464fae224f7616998e5d61b", "text": "Imagine that I own 10% of a company, and yesterday my portion was valued at $1 Million, therefore the company is valued at $10 Million. Today the company accepts an offer to sell 1% of the company for $500 Thousand: now my portion is worth $5 Million, and company is worth $50 Million. The latest stock price sets the value of the company. If next week the news is all bad and the new investor sells their shares to somebody else for pennies on the dollar, the value of the company will drop accordingly.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e643ada8ce8507bc04c5d54bb41c974b", "text": "Shares are tanking because: 1. Amazon is having SOME impact 2. The market for the last 10 years at least overreacts to fucking everything that happens. 3. A lot of retailers over-expanded. A large amount of the stores retailers are culling have been poor performers. Amazon is what pushed it all over the edge, but it will be fine. Brick and mortar isn't going anywhere in the long-term, a lot of people enjoy going out and shopping as well as the instant gratification of immediately getting what they paid for. There are also plenty of brick and mortar stores that give you customer service , and more importantly knowledge that Amazon can't dream of. They're just not shitty retail giants like Best Buy. 4. A lot of retailers in competitive segments, particularly things like fashion, failed to innovate fast enough. They will be replaced by other retailers that meet market desires better, which in turn may ultimately meet the same fate. The other prominent cycle in retail is the shift from malls to strip malls to outlet centers etc. It's just like fashion, to be honest. 5. I remain concerned about the future of Amazon's foundation - the review system. Gaming the review system is possible now and to be frank, I wouldn't be shocked if a leadership change at Amazon eventually compromises the integrity of the review system by getting in on it", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8be15acb6b240661d6447a5c078a6934", "text": "The main reason is that a public company is owned by its share holders, and share holders would care about the price of the stock they are owning, therefore the company would also care, because if the price go down too much, share holders become angry and may vote to oust the company's management.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2c2ba8dba2f6f2b1e937ccfc001c4238", "text": "\"In some cases, when a company purchases a minor stake, they often intend to increase the size of the stake over time. As a reference, note that Coca Cola has increased their stake in Green Mountain Coffee Roasters (GMCR) over time. It also adds some \"\"support\"\" to the price because these investors may be willing to step in and purchase the stock if there is any distress or poor performance. Finally, its generally a good \"\"tell\"\" that the stock has good things going for it and may be subject to additional interest from large investors.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f7c7d5c317bd7ca3d56dfc906b82d5a8", "text": "If your planning on shorting the stocks be careful, while the value of the retail sector may be declining there will be a lot of back and forth over the next ten years, and as REITs discounts to nav increases, there is huge opportunities for buyouts from developers who have other use ideas for the real estate. The real estate will always have value, even if it's not as a shopping center.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7f4ba7667d4bfca0520dcba717ee5f09", "text": "The stock exchange here serves as a meeting place for current shareholders who want to sell their shares to someone else. This has nothing to do with liquidation, which is a transaction between the company and its shareholders. A company does not have to be listed on an exchange to make distributions to shareholders.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3aed50438b0be52b9a0a266e82bb726e", "text": "people implicity agree to sell stocks when a company does bad But, remember, when you sell the stock of a company that, in your estimation, 'did bad', someone else had to buy; otherwise, there is no sale. The someone else who bought your shares evidently disagrees with your assessment. Did you sell because the company didn't earn a profit at all? Did it not earn a profit because it's in a dead-end business that is slowly but inevitably declining to zero? Something like Sears Holdings? Or did it not make a profit because it is in an emerging market that will possibly someday become hugely profitable? Something like Tesla, Inc.? Did you sell because the company made a profit, but it was lower than expected? Did they make a lower-than-expected profit because of lower sales? Why were the sales lower? Is the industry declining? Was the snow too heavy to send the construction crews out? Did the company make a big investment to build a new plant that will, in a few years, yield even higher sales and profits? What are the profits year-over-year? Increasing? Declining? Usually, investors are willing to pay a premium, that is more than expected, for a stock in a company with robust growth. As you can see, the mere fact that a company reported a profit is only one of many factors that determine the price of the shares in the market.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9d13217ba586a4b0f143db61b2947bf7", "text": "Also, Amazon doesn't care about profits as much as it cares about market share. Where before Whole Foods' management had to seek profit growth to keep stockholders happy, I can see Amazon running Whole Foods at a breakeven point or even a loss if it means that it allows Amazon to extend the reach of same-day Prime delivery and overall Prime membership numbers. I mean, if you think about it, Amazon could basically start turning Whole Foods stores into essentially warehouses for food delivery that also sell food the normal retail way. That would make just breaking even on the stores a better option than if Amazon had built their own same-day Prime food delivery warehouses across the country.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "7a6a4159b4a5646b119898c10dd61bf2", "text": "You can open Savings Bank Account with some Banks that offer better interest rate. Note there would be restriction on number of withdrawals in quarter. There are better interest rates if you lock in for 90+ days. The other option to explore is to open a Demat / Brokrage account and invest in liquid funds. Note depending on various factors it may or may not suite your requirements.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "7b2b5680166af921079718e37b719cb9", "text": "Just to offer another alternative, consider Certificates of Deposit (CDs) at an FDIC insured bank or credit union for small or short-term investments. If you don't need access to the money, as stated, and are not willing to take much risk, you could put money into a number of CDs instead of investing it in stocks, or just letting it sit in a regular savings/checking account. You are essentially lending money to the bank for a guaranteed length of time (anywhere from 3 to 60 months), and therefore they can give you a better rate of return than a savings account (which is basically lending it to them with the condition that you could ask for it all back at any time). Your rate of return in CDs is lower a typical stock investment, but carries no risk at all. CD rates typically increase with the length of the CD. For example, my credit union currently offers a 2.3% APY on a 5-year CD, but only 0.75% for 12 month CDs, and a mere 0.1% APY on regular savings/checking accounts. Putting your full $10K deposit into one or more CDs would yield $230 a year instead of a mere $10 in their savings account. If you go this route with some or all of your principal, note that withdrawing the money from a CD before the end of the deposit term will mean forfeiting the interest earned. Some banks may let you withdraw just a portion of a CD, but typically not. Work around this by splitting your funds into multiple CDs, and possibly different term lengths as well, to give you more flexibility in accessing the funds. Personally, I have a rolling emergency fund (~6 months living expenses, separate from all investments and day-to-day income/expenses) split evenly among 5 CDs, each with a 5-year deposit term (for the highest rate) with evenly staggered maturity dates. In any given year, I could close one of these CDs to cover an emergency and lose only a few months of interest on just 20% of my emergency fund, instead of several years interest on all of it. If I needed more funds, I could withdraw more of the CDs as needed, in order of youngest deposit age to minimize the interest loss - although that loss would probably be the least of my worries by then, if I'm dipping deeply into these funds I'll be needing them pretty badly. Initially I created the CDs with a very small amount and differing term lengths (1 year increments from 1-5 years) and then as each matured, I rolled it back into a 5 year CD. Now every year when one matures, I add a little more principal (to account for increased living expenses), and roll everything back in for another 5 years. Minimal thought and effort, no risk, much higher return than savings, fairly liquid (accessible) in an emergency, and great peace of mind. Plus it ensures I don't blow the money on something else, and that I have something to fall back on if all my other investments completely tanked, or I had massive medical bills, or lost my job, etc.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cae39c5b0872f5074bc5027490eb1da5", "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", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7dd5ab46edfce4a42eff2572587a6933", "text": "It depends a lot on your investment period and the quality of the bonds that you want to invest. For example, if you want to invest until the maturity of the bonds, and the bonds are very safe (i.e. they are not expected to default), it does not matter that the interest rate rise. That is because at the maturity of the bond it will converge to its maturity value which will be independent of the change of the interest rates (although on the middle of the life the price of the bond will go down, but the coupon should remain constant -unless is a floating coupon bond-). An option could be to invest in an ETF with short term bonds (e.g. 1 year) with AAA credit rating (high quality, so very low default rate). It won't yield much, but is more than 0% if you hold it until maturity.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2af07b740b87613ecc580fd8f8e59ced", "text": "\"I am assuming you mean derivatives such as speeders, sprinters, turbo's or factors when you say \"\"derivatives\"\". These derivatives are rather popular in European markets. In such derivatives, a bank borrows the leverage to you, and depending on the leverage factor you may own between 50% to +-3% of the underlying value. The main catch with such derivatives from stocks as opposed to owning the stock itself are: Counterpart risk: The bank could go bankrupt in which case the derivatives will lose all their value even if the underlying stock is sound. Or the bank could decide to phase out the certificate forcing you to sell in an undesirable situation. Spread costs: The bank will sell and buy the certificate at a spread price to ensure it always makes a profit. The spread can be 1, 5, or even 10 pips, which can translate to a the bank taking up to 10% of your profits on the spread. Price complexity: The bank buys and sells the (long) certificate at a price that is proportional to the price of the underlying value, but it usually does so in a rather complex way. If the share rises by €1, the (long) certificate will also rise, but not by €1, often not even by leverage * €1. The factors that go into determining the price are are normally documented in the prospectus of the certificate but that may be hard to find on the internet. Furthermore the bank often makes the calculation complex on purpose to dissimulate commissions or other kickbacks to itself in it's certificate prices. Double Commissions: You will have to pay your broker the commission costs for buying the certificate. However, the bank that issues the derivative certificate normally makes you pay the commission costs they incur by hiding them in the price of the certificate by reducing your effective leverage. In effect you pay commissions twice, once directly for buying the derivative, and once to the bank to allow it to buy the stock. So as Havoc P says, there is no free lunch. The bank makes you pay for the convenience of providing you the leverage in several ways. As an alternative, futures can also give you leverage, but they have different downsides such as margin requirements. However, even with all the all the drawbacks of such derivative certificates, I think that they have enough benefits to be useful for short term investments or speculation.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5cf21e874ace52095a9263cd6b1e72b3", "text": "If you are planning this as a tax avoidance scheme, well it is not. The gains will be taxable in your hands and not in the Banks hands. Banks simply don't cash out the stock at the same price, there will be quite a bit of both Lawyers and others ... so in the end you will end up paying more. The link indicates that one would pay back the loan via one's own earnings. So if you have a stock worth USD 100, you can pledge this to a Bank and get a max loan of USD 50 [there are regulations that govern the max you can get against 100]. You want to buy something worth USD 50. Option1: Sell half the stock, get USD 50, pay the captial gains tax on USD 50. Option2: Pledge the USD 100 stock to bank, get a loan of USD 50. As you have not sold anything, there is no tax. Over a period pay the USD 50 loan via your own earnings. A high valued customer may be able to get away with a very low rate of intrest and very long repayment period. The tax implication to your legal hier would be from the time the stock come to his/her hands to the time she sold. So if the price increase to 150 by the time Mark dies, and its sold at 160 later, the gain is only of USD 10. So rather than paying 30% or whatever the applicable tax rate, it would be wise to pay an interest of few percentages.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f70c8c562e977d956ae841fdb3c441b5", "text": "Your calc is spot on, the output is small because it's just 5 days worth of interest, and at today's low rates that's practically 0. Also the rate you would want to use is money market rates as that's typically where companies will park cash to earn interest since its a highly liquid market.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "099c14b11193274f3e43f00af6bda3a5", "text": "\"I really does depend on the bank. Here is a fairly typical page on interest calculations. The key phrase is: Interest is calculated on each day's final balance and paid monthly. So at the end of each day the amount of interest is calculated for that day, based on how much is in the account. At the end of the month the amount of interest for each day is totalled, and added to the account balance. That calculation is extremely similar to duffbeer703's \"\"compound monthly using the average balance for the month\"\", provided the account doesn't have tiered interest rates and the balance doesn't go negative. The software that banks use is easily sophisticated enough to handle that kind of calculation. Your bank should be able to give you a statement of exactly how the interest is calculated.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2c37252c6861473e3731714d2f72805a", "text": "\"You are correct that it could refer to any of the types of interest rates that you've mentioned. In general, though, phrases such as \"\"rising interest rates\"\" and \"\"falling interest rates\"\" refer to the Federal Funds Rate or LIBOR. These are the interest rates at which banks in the U.S. and U.K., respectively, are lending money to each other.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4e5b323e00d0f3483c4b8e7f58baee9d", "text": "Perhaps there is no single formula that accounts for all the time intervals, but there is a method to get formulas for each compound interest period. You deposit money monthly but there is interest applied weekly. Let's assume the month has 4 weeks. So you added x in the end of the first month, when the new month starts, you have x money in your account. After one week, you have x + bx money. After the second week, you have x + b(x + bx) and so on. Always taking the previous ammount of money and multiplying it by the interest (b) you have. This gives you for the end of the second month: This looks complicated, but it's easy for computers. Call it f(0), that is: It is a function that gives you the ammount of money you would obtain by the end of the second month. Do you see that the future money inputs are given with relation to the previous ones? Then we can do the following, for n>1 (notice the x is the end of the formula, it's the deposit of money in the end of the month, I'm assuming it'll pass through the compound interest only in the first week of the next month): And then write: There is something in mathematics called recurrence relation in which we can use these two formulas to produce a simplified one for arbitrary b and n. Doing it by hand would be a bit complicated, but fortunately CASes are able to do it easily. I used Wolfram Mathematica commands: And it gave me the following formula: All the work you actually have to do is to figure out what will be f(0) and then write the f(n) for n>0 in terms of f(n-1). Notice that I used the command FullSimplify in my code, Mathematica comes with algorithms for simplyfing formulas so if it didn't find something simpler, you probably won't find it by yourself! If the code looks ugly, it's because of Mathematica clipboard formatting, in the software, it looks like this: Notice that I wrote the entire formula for f(0), but as it's also a recurrence relation, it can be written as: That is: f(0)=g(4). This should give you much simpler formulas to apply in this method.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5f504ec4770251af8ae3520601a718ca", "text": "To short a stock you actually borrow shares and sell them. The shorter gets the money from selling immediately, and pays interest for the share he borrows until he covers the short. The amount of interest varies depending on the stock. It's typically under 1% a year for large cap stocks, but can be 20% or more for small, illiquid, or heavily shorted stocks. In this scam only a few people own the shares that are lent to shorters, so they essentially have a monopoly and can set really high borrow costs. The shorter probably assumes that a pump-and-dump will crash quickly, so wouldn't mind paying a high borrow cost.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "463fdf12613144bedc0bfe74333f35f4", "text": "\"How should I allocate short-term assets in a rising-interest rate environment? Assuming that the last part is correct, there could be bear bond funds that short bonds that could work well as a way to invest. However, bear in that the the \"\"rising-interest rate environment\"\" is part of the basis that may or may not be true in the end as I'm not sure I've seen anything to tell me why rates couldn't stay where they are for another couple of years or more. Long-Term Capital Management would be a cautionary tale before about bonds that had assumptions that backfired when something that wasn't supposed to happen, happened. Thus, while you can say there is \"\"rising-interest rate environment\"\" what else are you prepared to assume and how certain are you of that happening? An alternate theory here would be that \"\"junk bonds\"\" may do well because the economy has to be heating up for rates to rise and thus the bonds that are priced down so much because of default risk may turn out to not go bust and thus could do well. Course this would carry the \"\"Your mileage may vary\"\" and without a working time machine I couldn't say which funds will be good and which would suck. As for what I would do if I was dealing with my own money: Money market funds and CDs would likely be my suggestion for the short-term where I want to prevent principal risk. This is likely what I would do if I believed the rising rate environment is here.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1493ece5e04b1b29ea20ca134c7fef39", "text": "In the short-term, a savings account with an online bank can net you ~1% interest, while many banks/credit unions with local branches are 0.05%. Most of the online savings accounts allow 6 withdrawals per month (they'll let you do more, but charge a fee), if you pair it with a checking account, you can transfer your expected monthly need in one or two planned transfers to your checking account. Any other options that may result in a higher yield will either tie up your money for a set length of time, or expose you to risk of losing money. I wouldn't recommend gambling on short-term stock gains if you need the money during the off-season.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "33580f0327e95b794853dd6c811a609b", "text": "Generally, if you watch for the detail in the fine print, and stay away from non-FDIC insured investments, there is little difference, so yes, pick the highest you can get. The offered interest rate is influenced by what the banks are trying to accomplish, and how their current and desired customer base thinks. Some banks have customer bases with very conservative behavior, which will stick with them because they trust them no matter what, so a low interest rate is good enough. The disadvantage for the bank is that such customers prefer brick-and-mortar contact, which is expensive for the bank. Or maybe the bank has already more cash than they need, and has no good way to invest it. Other banks might need more cash flow to be able to get stronger in the mortgage market, and their way of getting that is to offer higher interest rates, so new customers come and invest new money (which the bank in turn can then mortgage out). They also may offer higher rates for online handling only. Overall, there are many different ways to make money as a bank, and they diversify into different niches with other focuses, and that comes with offering quite different interest rates.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "18a79eb08dc3d53a6c2c3ed6f6d25b4b", "text": "\"Banks make less profit when \"\"long\"\" rates are low compared to \"\"short\"\" rates. Banks lend for long term purposes like five year business loans or 30 year mortgages. They get their funds from (mostly) \"\"short term\"\" deposits, which can be emptied in days. Banks make money on the difference between 5 and 30 year rates, and short term rates. It is the difference, and not the absolute level of rates, that determines their profitability. A bank that pays 1% on CDs, and lends at 3% will make money. During the 1970s, short rates kept rising,and banks were stuck with 30 year loans at 7% from the early part of the decade, when short rates rose to double digits around 1980, and they lost money.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6e732648b31005f1d4e21e034a068d67", "text": "There is no single 'market interest rate'; there are myriad interest rates that vary by risk profile & term. Corporate bonds are (typically) riskier than bank deposits, and therefore pay a higher effective rate when the market for that bond is in equilibrium than a bank account does. If you are willing to accept a higher risk in order gain a higher return, you might choose bonds over bank deposits. If you want an even higher return and can accept even higher risk, you might turn to stocks over bonds. If you want still higher return and can bear the still higher risk, derivatives may be more appealing than stocks.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "60e096d50149b10d70b6d360eeb8e2f8", "text": "This is in the balance sheet, but the info is not usually that detailed. It is safe to assume that at least some portion of the cash/cash equivalents will be in liquid bonds. You may find more specific details in the company SEC filings (annual reports etc).", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "4ad78c252c10c6b6a1ea91d8e2332a20", "text": "\"A company whose stock is available for sale to the public is called a publicly-held or publicly-traded company. A public company's stock is sold on a stock exchange, and anyone with money can buy shares through a stock broker. This contrasts with a privately-held company, in which the shares are not traded on a stock exchange. In order to invest in a private company, you would need to talk directly to the current owners of the company. Finding out if a company is public or private is fairly easy. One way to check this is to look at the Wikipedia page for the company. For example, if you take a look at the Apple page, on the right sidebar you'll see \"\"Type: Public\"\", followed by the stock exchange ticker symbol \"\"AAPL\"\". Compare this to the page for Mars, Inc.; on that page, you'll see \"\"Type: Private\"\", and no stock ticker symbol listed. Another way to tell: If you can find a quote for a share price on a financial site (such as Google Finance or Yahoo Finance), you can buy the stock. You won't find a stock price for Mars, Inc. anywhere, because the stock is not publicly traded.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "da3bb20b815bd711a1d70bb82fd9fd3f", "text": "In general you cannot. Once the security is no longer listed on the exchange - it doesn't have to provide information to the exchange and regulators (unless it wants to be re-listed). That's one of the reasons companies go private - to keep their (financial and other) information private. If it was listed in 1999, and is no longer listed now - you can dig through SEC archives for the information. You can try and reach out to the company's investors' relations contact and see if they can help you with the specific information you're looking for.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6d710ce4d7a4275036f7b4a3cce5a07e", "text": "\"The best place to start looking is the companies \"\"Balance Sheet\"\" (B/S). This would show you the total shares \"\"outstanding.\"\" The quarterly B/S's arent audited but a good starting point. To use in any quant method, You also need to look a growth the outstanding shares number. Company can issue shares to any employee without making a filing. Also, YOU will NEVER know exactly the total number because of stock options that are issued to employees that are out of the money arent account for. Some companies account for these, some dont. You should also explore the concepts of \"\"fully dilute\"\" shares and \"\"basis\"\" shares. These concepts will throw-off your calc if the company has convertible bonds.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "068cb721b9e627d262e7902c1f09804a", "text": "There are PABs (Private Activity Bonds) for the smaller market issues, but you basically need a local government to act as the conduit issuer. There are a whole host of other requirements but it is a way to potentially get tax-exempt rates or get access to the taxables market.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d37196a48b37a2316c05a349ab0af9cf", "text": "\"So how does one of these get set up exactly? If a private company wants to backstop their ability to repay bond obligations with public funds, doesn't an agreement like that have to go through something like a city council meeting before it's approved? If it does, and that happened in these cases, then the municipalities made a bad decision on an \"\"investment\"\" that included some level of risk, just like any other investment they make. If it doesn't work out, it shouldn't be a surprise who's on the hook for the payment.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e72a9e53a04c6d504a9d521f8f8eb891", "text": "Haven't there been examples of governments defaulting, delaying payment and imposing haircuts on investors? Greece and Argentina come to mind. Quite a few Govt have defaulted in the past or were very of default or crisis. Most 3rd world countries or developing countries have under gone stress at some point. Greece was amongst the first example of Developed country going bankrupt. am I not better off if the fund invests solely in AAA corporate bonds, avoiding government bonds? Well that depends. Corporate bonds are not safer than Government Bonds. There have been instances of Corporate bonds not giving the required returns.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e8c5450e3d1e6e492f587ae662fb9d9e", "text": "\"I kind of understand the \"\"basics\"\", and have done a couple (with the assistance of pre-made excel sheets haha), I just don't feel that I'm creating an actual valuable valuation when I do one. While on the topic though, do you know where an individual investor can calculate the cost of debt for the WACC? I've been looking on morningstar and search up that public company and take the average of the coupon on all outstanding bonds. I don't feel like that's very correct though :(\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d631051ceeabe3f8187ffa06ffa97909", "text": "All the transactions in your account are recorded. All the transactions in the vault account are recorded. What's not necessarily recorded is how the vault transactions are related to your account transactions. This is where the theft can be hidden for years. EDIT: And I'm willing to bet they were treating bonds as cash for accounting purposes. If so, you can't even just look at when the balances diverged.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b0450d67e8cbf88413d3c97a3f56ac2f", "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.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6d72dc32aae29c0d106cd27b4f1755d9", "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\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dc2b1071dc0a591bb00427ba3c3f5688", "text": "If it is Texas company, you can try doing a taxable entity search on the Texas Comptroller website.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7d2fcf90325654ef54b9d2fb7dc1f6ff", "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", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d5d2969e3095dd87f04b0ffbbdb58be3", "text": "Check your local better business bureau. They can tell you who is in business, who's bonded, and who has had a lot of complaints levied against them for shoddy practices.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cdc14fda39e15aa5537599cf56abf0e0", "text": "i cannot directly tell from the provided information if it is already included in Net A/R but if there is a balance sheet you can check yourself if the Total Cash Flow matches the difference between cash position year 0&amp;1 and see if it is net or still to be included.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6db30f454c040ad0bfefaf7151447a71", "text": "Good day! Did a little research by using oldest public company (Dutch East India Company, VOC, traded in Amsterdam Stock Exchange) as search criteria and found this lovely graph from http://www.businessinsider.com/rise-and-fall-of-united-east-india-2013-11?IR=T : Why it is relevant? Below the image I found the source of data - Global Financial Data. I guess the answer to your question would be to go there: https://www.globalfinancialdata.com/index.html Hope this helps and good luck in your search!", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "c4af7c5b84f8a8e9b587e166afcedb5c", "text": "If you believe the stock market will be down 20-30% in the next few months, sell your stock holdings, buy a protective put option for the value of the holdings that you want to keep. That would be hedging against it. Anything more is speculating that the market will fall.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "48345d5776717886b3a688f1d83911e7", "text": "If you were certain you would probably do best by short selling an ETF that tracked the index for the market you think was about to tank. You'd certainly make a lot more money on that strategy than precious metals. If you were feeling super confident and want to make your money earn even more, you could also buy a bunch of put options on those same ETF funds. Obligatory Warning: Short selling and options can be extremely risky. While most investments cap your potential losses to your total investment, a short sale has no theoretical limit to the amount of money you can lose.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e24ea228461090f6021348631a5de106", "text": "Sometimes the simple ways are the best:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "85489c05ac7a10c1377c05bb0291504e", "text": "Put Options. They're less risky than shorting, and have similar upsides. The major difference is that if the price goes up, you're just out the underwriting price. You'll also need to know when the event will happen, or you risk being outwaited. More traditionally, an investor would pull their money out of the market and move into Treasury bonds. Recall that when the market tanked in 2008, the price of treasuries jumped. Problem is, you can only do that trade once, and it hasn't really unwound yet. And the effect is most pronounced on short term treasuries, so you have to babysit the investment. Because of this, I think some people have moved into commodities like gold, but there's a lot of risk there. Worst case scenario you have a lot of shiny metal you can't eat or use.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "afdd5a936be2a9b0e538321fa88b1cd4", "text": "There are multiple ETFs which inversely track the common indices, though many of these are leveraged. For example, SDS tracks approximately -200% of the S&P 500. (Note: due to how these are structured, they are only suitable for very short term investments) You can also consider using Put options for the various indices as well. For example, you could buy a Put for the SPY out a year or so to give you some fairly cheap insurance (assuming it's a small part of your portfolio). One other option is to invest against the market volatility. As the market makes sudden swings, the volatility goes up; this tends to be true more when it falls than when it rises. One way of invesing in market volatility is to trade options against the VIX.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "8615e9a68e1874e10f12d06764d16009", "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.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1856f12fa004f6ee1b1d9889a4827b0d", "text": "Bonds by themselves aren't recession proof. No investment is, and when a major crash (c.f. 2008) occurs, all investments will be to some extent at risk. However, bonds add a level of diversification to your investment portfolio that can make it much more stable even during downturns. Bonds do not move identically to the stock market, and so many times investing in bonds will be more profitable when the stock market is slumping. Investing some of your investment funds in bonds is safer, because that diversification allows you to have some earnings from that portion of your investment when the market is going down. It also allows you to do something called rebalancing. This is when you have target allocation proportions for your portfolio; say 60% stock 40% bond. Then, periodically look at your actual portfolio proportions. Say the market is way up - then your actual proportions might be 70% stock 30% bond. You sell 10 percentage points of stocks, and buy 10 percentage points of bonds. This over time will be a successful strategy, because it tends to buy low and sell high. In addition to the value of diversification, some bonds will tend to be more stable (but earn less), in particular blue chip corporate bonds and government bonds from stable countries. If you're willing to only earn a few percent annually on a portion of your portfolio, that part will likely not fall much during downturns - and in fact may grow as money flees to safer investments - which in turn is good for you. If you're particularly worried about your portfolio's value in the short term, such as if you're looking at retiring soon, a decent proportion should be in this kind of safer bond to ensure it doesn't lose too much value. But of course this will slow your earnings, so if you're still far from retirement, you're better off leaving things in growth stocks and accepting the risk; odds are no matter who's in charge, there will be another crash or two of some size before you retire if you're in your 30s now. But when it's not crashing, the market earns you a pretty good return, and so it's worth the risk.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "231edf979c5c89266277168a74e11be4", "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.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5a72ff5df7c10fc5819181bb3b972e83", "text": "Then buy an indexed ETF or mutual fund that tracks the S&amp;P 500 and leave your money there until you need it. If you can (there are restrictions for income, etc.), try and setup a retirement vehicle, such as a Roth IRA to get tax advantages.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ee81a90148d0f963fa707fa0e5631b6c", "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.,)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cb87072852045121352db618e87426c1", "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.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e9479291259074533e355387dc6805eb", "text": "\"The difference is in the interrelation between the varied investments you make. Hedging is about specifically offsetting a possible loss in an investment by making another related investment that will increase in value for the same reasons that the original investment would lose value. Gold, for instance, is often regarded as the ultimate hedge. Its value is typically inversely correlated to the rest of the market as a whole, because its status as a material, durable store of value makes it a preferred \"\"safe haven\"\" to move money into in times of economic downturn, when stock prices, bond yields and similar investments are losing value. That specific behavior makes investing in gold alongside stocks and bonds a \"\"hedge\"\"; the increase in value of gold as stock prices and bond yields fall limits losses in those other areas. Investment of cash in gold is also specifically a hedge against currency inflation; paper money, account balances, and even debt instruments like bonds and CDs can lose real value over time in a \"\"hot\"\" economy where there's more money than things to buy with it. By keeping a store of value in something other than currency, the price of that good will rise as the currencies used to buy it decrease in real value, maintaining your level of real wealth. Other hedges are more localized. One might, for example, trade oil futures as a hedge on a position in transportation stocks; when oil prices rise, trucking and airline companies suffer in the short term as their margins get squeezed due to fuel costs. Currency futures are another popular hedge; a company in international business will often trade options on the currencies of the companies it does business in, to limit the \"\"jitters\"\" seen in the FOREX spot market caused by speculation and other transient changes in market demand. Diversification, by contrast, is about choosing multiple unrelated investments, the idea being to limit losses due to a localized change in the market. Companies' stocks gain and lose value every day, and those companies can also go out of business without bringing the entire economy to its knees. By spreading your wealth among investments in multiple industries and companies of various sizes and global locations, you insulate yourself against the risk that any one of them will fail. If, tomorrow, Kroger grocery stores went bankrupt and shuttered all its stores, people in the regions it serves might be inconvenienced, but the market as a whole will move on. You, however, would have lost everything if you'd bet your retirement on that one stock. Nobody does that in the real world; instead, you put some of your money in Kroger, some in Microsoft, some in Home Depot, some in ALCOA, some in PG&E, etc etc. By investing in stocks that would be more or less unaffected by a downturn in another, if Kroger went bankrupt tomorrow you would still have, say, 95% of your investment next egg still alive, well and continuing to pay you dividends. The flip side is that if tomorrow, Kroger announced an exclusive deal with the Girl Scouts to sell their cookies, making them the only place in the country you can get them, you would miss out on the full possible amount of gains you'd get from the price spike if you had bet everything on Kroger. Hindsight's always 20/20; I could have spent some beer money to buy Bitcoins when they were changing hands for pennies apiece, and I'd be a multi-millionaire right now. You can't think that way when investing, because it's \"\"survivor bias\"\"; you see the successes topping the index charts, not the failures. You could just as easily have invested in any of the hundreds of Internet startups that don't last a year.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "700d562ac8cc25dccfd48cd894eb4ef0", "text": "\"Some thoughts: 1) Do you have a significant emergency fund (3-6 months of after-tax living expenses)? If not, you stand to take a significant loss if you have an unexpected need for cash that is tied up in investments. What if you lose/hate your job or your car breaks down? What if a you want to spend some time with a relative or significant other who learns they only have a few months to live? Having a dedicated emergency fund is an important way to avoid downside risk. 2) Lagerbaer has a good suggestion. Given that if you'd reinvested your dividends, the S&P 500 has returned about 3.5% over the last 5 years, you may be able to get a very nice risk-free return. 3) Do you have access to employer matching funds, such as in a 401(k) at work? If you get a dollar-for-dollar match, that is a risk-free pre-tax 100% return and should be a high priority. 4) What do you mean by \"\"medium\"\" volatility? Given that you are considering a 2/3 equity allocation, it would not be at all out of the realm of possibility that your balance could fall by 15% or more in any given year and take several years to recover. If that would spook you, you may want to consider lowering your equity weights. A high quality bond fund may be a good fit. 5) Personally, I would avoid putting money into stocks that I didn't need back for 10 years. If you only want to tie your money up for 2-5 years, you are taking a significant risk that if prices fall, you won't have time to recover before you need your money back. The portfolio you described would be appropriate for someone with a long-term investment horizon and significant risk tolerance, which is usually the case for young people saving for retirement. However, if your goals are to invest for 2-5 years only, your situation would be significantly different. 6) You can often borrow from an investment account to purchase a primary residence, but you must pay that amount back in order to avoid significant taxes and fees, unless you plan to liquidate assets. If you plan to buy a house, saving enough to avoid PMI is a good risk-free return on your money. 7) In general, and ETF or index fund is a good idea, the key being to minimize the compound effect of expenses over the long term. There are many good choices a la Vanguard here to choose from. 8) Don't worry about \"\"Buy low, sell high\"\". Don't be a speculator, be an investor (that's my version of Anthony Bourdain's, \"\"don't be a tourist, be a traveler\"\"). A speculator wants to sell shares at a higher price than they were purchased at. An investor wants to share in the profits of a company as a part-owner. If you can consistently beat the market by trying to time your transactions, good for you - you can move to Wall Street and make millions. However, almost no one can do this consistently, and it doesn't seem worth it to me to try. I don't mean to discourage you from investing, just make sure you have your bases covered so that you don't have to cash out at a bad time. Best of luck! Edit Response to additional questions below. 1) Emergency fund. I would recommend not investing in anything other than cash equivalents (money market, short-term CDs, etc.) until you've built up an emergency fund. It makes sense to want to make the \"\"best\"\" use of your money, but you also have to account for risk. My concern is that if you were to experience one or more adverse life events, that you could lose a lot of money, or need to pay a lot in interest on credit card debt, and it would be prudent to self-insure against some of those risks. I would also recommend against using an investment account as an emergency fund account. Taking money out of investment accounts is inefficient because the commissions/taxes/fees can easily eat up a significant portion of your returns. Ideally, you would want to put money in and not touch it for a long time in order to take advantage of compounding returns. There are also high penalties for early disbursements from retirement funds. Just like you need enough money in your checking account to buy food and pay the rent every month, you need enough money in an emergency fund to pay for things that are a real possibility, even if they are less common. Using a credit card or an investment account is a relatively expensive way to do this. 2) Invest at all? I would recommend starting an emergency fund, and then beginning to invest for retirement. Once your retirement savings are on track, you can begin saving for whatever other goals you may have\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8310f2218e19f58e31b2da656ce534a7", "text": "Are you willing to risk the possibility of investing to prepare for these things and losing money or simply getting meager returns if those crises don't happen? Just invest in a well diversified portfolio both geographically and across multiple sectors and you should be fine.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "58d36651cc5f1d4b3e8327bc4833378a", "text": "\"If you're investing for the long term your best strategy is going to be a buy-and-hold strategy, or even just buying a few index funds in several major asset classes and forgetting about it. Following \"\"market conditions\"\" is about as useful to the long term trader as checking the weather in Anchorage, Alaska every day (assuming that you don't live in Anchorage, Alaska). Let me suggest treating yourself to a subscription to The Economist and read it once a week. You'll learn a lot more about investing, economics, and world trends, and you won't be completely in the dark if there are major structural changes in the world (like gigantic housing bubbles) that you might want to know about.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5b70a0767127af96e29b1b5b41b93e99", "text": "\"I can think of a few reasons for this. First, bonds are not as correlated with the stock market so having some in your portfolio will reduce volatility by a bit. This is nice because it makes you panic less about the value changes in your portfolio when the stock market is acting up, and I'm sure that fund managers would rather you make less money consistently then more money in a more volatile way. Secondly, you never know when you might need that money, and since stock market crashes tend to be correlated with people losing their jobs, it would be really unfortunate to have to sell off stocks when they are under-priced due to market shenanigans. The bond portion of your portfolio would be more likely to be stable and easier to sell to help you get through a rough patch. I have some investment money I don't plan to touch for 20 years and I have the bond portion set to 5-10% since I might as well go for a \"\"high growth\"\" position, but if you're more conservative, and might make withdrawals, it's better to have more in bonds... I definitely will switch over more into bonds when I get ready to retire-- I'd rather have slow consistent payments for my retirement than lose a lot in an unexpected crash at a bad time!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "61d4dc5d0d5d24072fd42eeb5e6639bc", "text": "I've thought of the following ways to hedge against a collapsing dollar:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8aca5ab77ad9a7c18b6ceeb4300f23be", "text": "$10k isn't really enough to make enough money to offset the extremely high risks in investing in options in this area. Taking risks is great, but a sure losing proposition isn't a risk -- it's a gamble. You're likely to get wiped out with leveraged options, since you don't have enough money to hedge your bets. Timing is critical... look at the swings in valuation in the stock market between the Bear Sterns and Lehman collapses in 2009. If you were highly leveraged in QQQQ that you bought in June 2009, you would have $0 in November. With $10k, I'd diversify into a mixture of foreign cash (maybe ETFs like FXF, FXC, FXY), emerging markets equities and commodities. Your goal should be to preserve investment value until buying opportunities for depressed assets come around. Higher interest rates that come with inflation will be devastating to the US economy, so if I'm betting on high inflation, I want to wait for a 2009-like buying opportunity. Then you buy depressed non-cyclical equities with easy to predict cash flows like utilities (ConEd), food manufacturers (General Mills), consumer non-durables (P&G) and alcohol/tobacco. If they look solvent, buying commodity ETFs like the new Copper ETFs or interests in physical commodities like copper, timber, oil or other raw materials with intrinsic value are good too. I personally don't like gold for this purpose because it doesn't have alot of industrial utility. Silver is a little better, but copper and oil are things with high intrinsic value that are always needed. As far as leverage goes, proceed with caution. What happens when you get high inflation? High cost of capital.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dbf893ec807be8fab7f44e5329eadcc3", "text": "\"As a great man once said, \"\"No risk it, no biscuit.\"\" Nothing can immunize you from catastrophe. But cash won't do well in a war, either, so you need to turn it into something else. And timing is a crapshoot. When you enter, when you exit, total waste of your energy. Find something you want to own and watch, and get wet. If you want to be diversified, get into index funds. You'll technically own a little of everything, and they do well if you just leave them be. For example, they're higher than they were at the start of every war in the past. If you don't need the money in the war, just leave it there and you'll come out later with more than you started with which is what you wanted. Stay away from bonds, because the Fed is going to start unwinding QE soon and that's going to clobber bond values, taking bond funds with them. If you feel totally convinced war is coming, then get something that exposes you to gold. Like gold, for instance.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6821015b22bf903e1176699de9ec2480", "text": "Buy puts on stock holdings buy puts on indexes look at volatility etfs and silver/gold etf s. Calling a market top is hard people hVe tried for 8 years now. 90 of protection via options expires worthless. Who knows if we have another crash. I don't call tops or bottoms if we start falling then I'll look at protection and play the downside", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "f744364c976f38ef461e3449e043a277", "text": "You seem to think that stock exchanges are much more than they actually are. But it's right there in the name: stock exchange. It's a place where people exchange (i.e. trade) stocks, no more and no less. All it does is enable the trading (and thereby price finding). Supposedly they went into mysterious bankruptcy then what will happen to the listed companies Absolutely nothing. They may have to use a different exchange if they're planning an IPO or stock buyback, that's all. and to the shareholder's stock who invested in companies that were listed in these markets ? Absolutley nothing. It still belongs to them. Trades that were in progress at the moment the exchange went down might be problematic, but usually the shutdown would happen in a manner that takes care of it, and ultimately the trade either went through or it didn't (and you still have the money). It might take some time to establish this. Let's suppose I am an investor and I bought stocks from a listed company in NYSE and NYSE went into bankruptcy, even though NYSE is a unique business, meaning it doesn't have to do anything with that firm which I invested in. How would I know the stock price of that firm Look at a different stock exchange. There are dozens even within the USA, hundreds internationally. and will I lose my purchased stocks ? Of course not, they will still be listed as yours at your broker. In general, what will happen after that ? People will use different stock exchanges, and some of them migth get overloaded from the additional volume. Expect some inconveniences but no huge problems.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "115ffc4a1e702919e0b5eb98226b394a", "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.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "68091295b7fb6720774adf3dda051fda", "text": "It might be easiest to think of stock exchanges like brokers. If you buy a home, and your broker goes bankrupt, you still own your home, but you could not sell it without the aid of another broker. Same with stocks, you own the stocks you buy, but you would be unable to either purchase new stocks or sell your stock holdings without an exchange.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "596c851ead1b66cb3bf36f4853c6a8e8", "text": "Based on my research while asking How are unmarketable market orders (other side of the order book is empty) matched with incoming orders? and the one answer there, it seems like there are a few things for certain: All of this of course depends on the exact algorithm specified by the given exchange - I don't think there's a standard here.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "45c3cb28491d6b35f3219f442d3100a6", "text": "\"These have the potential to become \"\"end-of-the-world\"\" scenarios, so I'll keep this very clear. If you start to feel that any particular investment may suddenly become worthless then it is wise to liquidate that asset and transfer your wealth somewhere else. If your wealth happens to be invested in cash then transferring that wealth into something else is still valid. Digging a hole in the ground isn't useful and running for the border probably won't be necessary. Consider countries that have suffered actual currency collapse and debt default. Take Zimbabwe, for example. Even as inflation went into the millions of percent, the Zimbabwe stock exchange soared as investors were prepared to spend ever-more of their devaluing currency to buy stable stocks in a small number of locally listed companies. Even if the Euro were to suffer a critical fall, European companies would probably be ok. If you didn't panic and dig caches in the back garden over the fall of dotcom, there is no need to panic over the decline of certain currencies. Just diversify your risk and buy non-cash (or euro) assets. Update: A few ideas re diversification: The problem for Greece isn't really a euro problem; it is local. Local property, local companies ... these can be affected by default because no-one believes in the entirety of the Greek economy, not just the currency it happens to be using - so diversification really means buying things that are outside Greece.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d35cff4fb7363e321d88241932eab2a0", "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.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d136f7a305f0ebe8718fdc3b590115ec", "text": "As Chris pointed out in his comment, smaller stock exchanges may use open outcry. There are several exchanges that use open outcry/floor trading in the US, however, although they aren't necessarily stock exchanges. Having visited the three Chicago exchanges I mentioned, I can personally vouch for their continued use of a trading floor, although its use is declining in all three.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "809ccbb5c07858622251eb8ac3250b5d", "text": "High risk foreign debt is great until the bottom falls out of the market when the government default on debt or revalues currency. If you do this, you should be able to sustain near total losses of principal and interest.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7a02f833c1d38b9690a782247c15885f", "text": "\"Its bandwidth, so no, it wouldn't clog up the \"\"tubes\"\" like a highway. Everyone who quotes has a fixed amount of bandwidth and an exchange can cut off a firm's connection. The exchanges know who is quoting- you have to buy connections to them to do this stuff. Every exchange I have seen has reporting capability to see who is quoting what, and who is trading what. Whoever is doing this isn't making any money, because they didn't trade anything! Servers and connectivity are expensive, so they are actually losing money. This situation is almost certainly due to either a new algo \"\"soft launching\"\" or being tweaked and having its parameters set too conservatively.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0da4ce624e5475b510e50627b98ae7a5", "text": "\"Yes, except many, many Icelanders still owe debt on assets they purchased in krona (the Icelandic dollar) before it collapsed. Now many are stuck with homes, vehicles, etc. on which they owe twice the underlying value. You'll often see this referred to as \"\"private debt overhang\"\" in financial news articles, and it is not reported on nearly enough. Just letting the banks fail doesn't unwind all of the ridiculous currency speculation that took place in Iceland. They may be on their way to recovery...eventually...but they're still in terrible shape in the short term.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a7d9132f205e3cc966b4f2f0534c76c4", "text": "Technically, of course. Almost any company can go bankrupt. One small note: a company goes bankrupt, not its stock. Its stock may become worthless in bankruptcy, but a stock disappearing or being delisted doesn't necessarily mean the company went bankrupt. Bankruptcy has implications for a company's debt as well, so it applies to more than just its stock. I don't know of any historical instances where this has happened, but presumably, the warning signs of bankruptcy would be evident enough that a few things could happen. Another company, e.g. another exchange, holding firm, etc. could buy out the exchange that's facing financial difficulty, and the companies traded on it would transfer to the new company that's formed. If another exchange bought out the struggling exchange, the shares of the latter could transfer to the former. This is an attractive option because exchanges possess a great deal of infrastructure already in place. Depending on the country, this could face regulatory scrutiny however. Other firms or governments could bail out the exchange if no one presented a buyout offer. The likelihood of this occurring depends on several factors, e.g. political will, the government(s) in question, etc. For a smaller exchange, the exchange could close all open positions at a set price. This is exactly what happened with the Hong Kong Mercantile Exchange (HKMex) that MSalters mentioned. When the exchange collapsed in May 2013, it closed all open positions for their price on the Thursday before the shutdown date. I don't know if a stock exchange would simply close all open positions at a set price, since equity technically exists in perpetuity regardless of the shutdown of an exchange, while many derivatives have an expiration date. Furthermore, this might not be a feasible option for a large exchange. For example, the Chicago Mercantile Exchange lists thousands of products and manages hundreds of millions of transactions, so closing all open positions could be a significant undertaking. If none of the above options were available, I presume companies listed on the exchange would actively move to other, more financially stable exchanges. These companies wouldn't simply go bankrupt. Contracts can always be listed on other exchanges as well. Considering the high level of mergers and acquisitions, both unsuccessful and successful, in the market for exchanges in recent years, I would assume that option 1 would be the most likely (see the NYSE Euronext/Deutsche Börse merger talks and the NYSE Euronext/ICE merger that's currently in progress), but for smaller exchanges, there is the recent historical precedent of the HKMex that speaks to #3. Also, the above answer really only applies to publicly traded stock exchanges, and not all stock exchanges are publicly-held entities. For example, the Shanghai Stock Exchange is a quasi-governmental organization, so I presume option 2 would apply because it already receives government backing. Its bankruptcy would mean something occurred for the government to withdraw its backing or that it became public, and a discussion of those events occurring in the future is pure speculation.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d0639d406a8990b39b5ae168d9ebf638", "text": "There no legal framework that allows states like the US or countries in Europe to default on their debt. Should congress pass a law to default the US supreme court is likely to nullify the law.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5e378ee1d0052e8237391cc8a26c5555", "text": "How should we disregard leverage when it's the leverage that creates the 'wipe-out' potential? If you simply convert 100K EUR to USDollars, you dollars might then fluctuate a few thousand, maybe even 10K over a year, but the guy that only put up 1000 EUR to do this has a disproportionally higher risk.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d53e34fe02d98329fad8b4a92043b8fb", "text": "not a chance. imagine how this could be abused. US stock exchanges rarely ever do any reversing of transactions. theres a million different ways the market can take your money. a loss from a typo is nothing special. its a mismanagement just like any other loss or profit for others.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "998e630126f66709e84a3de6ba91fdda", "text": "If any Euro countries leave the Euro, they will have to impose capital flow restrictions - it's a given, to avoid a complete implosion of the entire system. The idea of retroactive controls is very interesting - this may be one of the first times in a currency collapse that such a system would be feasible (i.e., both the country being fled from and the countries being fled to are under common control). No doubt they would try such a thing if they thought they could get away with it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5e8494e54f4125111114c7361174730d", "text": "\"Am I wrong? Yes. The exchanges are most definitely not \"\"good ole boys clubs\"\". They provide a service (a huge, liquid and very fast market), and they want to be paid for it. Additionally, since direct participants in their system can cause serious and expensive disruptions, they allow only organizations that know what they're doing and can pay for any damages the cause. Is there a way to invest without an intermediary? Certainly, but if you have to ask this question, it's the last thing you should do. Typically such offers are only superior to people who have large investments sums and know what they're doing - as an inexperienced investor, chances are that you'll end up losing everything to some fraudster. Honestly, large exchanges have become so cheap (e.g. XETRA costs 2.52 EUR + 0.0504% per trade) that if you're actually investing, then exchange fees are completely irrelevant. The only exception may be if you want to use a dollar-cost averaging strategy and don't have a lot of cash every month - fixed fees can be significant then. Many banks offer investments plans that cover this case.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c0d0368bdda605c51b53c580867697f1", "text": "US or EU states are sovereigns which cannot go bankrupt. US states have defaulted in the 1840's, but in most of those cases creditors were eventually repaid in full. (I'm not 100% sure, but I believe that Indiana was an exception with regard to costs incurred building a canal system) The best modern example of a true near-default was New York City in the late 1970's. Although New York City isn't a state, the size and scope of its finances is greater than many US states. What happened then in a nutshell: Basically, a default of a major state or a city like NYC where creditors took major losses would rock the financial markets and make it difficult for all states to obtain both short and long term financing at reasonable rates. That's why these entities get bailed out -- if Greece or California really collapse, it will likely create a domino effect that will have wide reaching effects.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0221b08de55ce6d99cfc7df8255d9b26", "text": "Hey thanks for your response. The commodity is actually electricity, so definitely not able to store. Would you mind giving me a short summary of your thought process or an example of how you compare liquid markets vs illiquid ones when looking at more traditional commodities? If that is a bit much to ask, as I am sure it could get quite involved do you have any reading recommendations? This little project has sparked an interest.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "76a9ed4fab9cd5cc581ca44a192f6936", "text": "\"From Wikipedia: Managerial accounting is used primarily by those within a company or organization. Reports can be generated for any period of time such as daily, weekly or monthly. Reports are considered to be \"\"future looking\"\" and have forecasting value to those within the company.** Financial accounting is used primarily by those outside of a company or organization. Financial reports are usually created for a set period of time, such as a fiscal year or period. Financial reports are historically factual and have predictive value to those who wish to make financial decisions or investments in a company. At my university, managerial accounting focused more on the details of how costs were managed in the company, the future of the business, etc. while the courses that were considered financial accounting were more from the point of view of a financial analyst or investor, like you said. The financial accountancy material covered analysis of financial statements and the associated investment decisions, among other things. These areas overlapped in areas like the production of financial statements, since the company also needs to consider how analysts will interpret these statements, and dividend policy, corporate tax accounting, etc. The Wikipedia articles on managerial accounting and financial accounting may provide helpful information as well. Disclaimer: I took an introductory accounting course in university and nothing more, so my knowledge of the course structures, even at my alma mater, is secondhand recollection at best. I'm sure there are more similarities and differences of which I'm unaware, and I would assume that forensic accountants, auditors, etc. dabble in both these areas and others.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "9181a0442098d0d31d1e676242aa7daf", "text": "\"tl;dr It's a difference between cash and cash equivalents and net cash and cash equivalents. Download the 2016 annual report from http://www.diageo.com/en-us/investor/Pages/financialreports.aspx On page 99 is the Consolidated Statement of Cash Flows at the bottom is a section \"\"Net cash and cash equivalents consist of:\"\" Net cash and cash equivalents consist of: 2016-06-30 2015-06-30 Cash and cash equivalents 1,089 472 Bank overdrafts (280) (90) 809 382 The difference between net cash of 809 million and 382 million is 427 million, matching the \"\"Change in Cash and Cash Equivalents\"\" from Yahoo. I do not know that bank overdrafts mean in this situation, but appears to cause cash to show up on balance sheet without being reflected in the net cash portions of the cash flow statement. And the numbers seem like balances, not year of year changes like the rest of the statement of cash flows. 2015 net CCE 382 2016 cash flow + 427 ---- 2016 net CCE 809 Cash from overdrafts + 280 ---- 2015 balance sheet cash 1,089\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2747532012caf19a07d2e6b3a29df97f", "text": "I'm in MIS with a comajor in International Business at a top 10 school for Business. I am thinking about adding Accounting as a double major. It all depends on what you want to do with your future and where you want to go. I wouldn't personally do Finance unless you're at a top recruiting school. Accounting is by far the most stable though, you will always find a job. It is regarded as the language of Business", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ba5bf7b67849af2a301c29a925ef0c59", "text": "The technical skills (excel, matlab, econometrics) others posted are absolutely essential, but I have seen a ton of world class number crunchers who could not put anything in context. My advice: - Read any annual report for any company you find somewhat interesting, aim for reading 2 or 3 a week. This is the best way to learn real world macro economics and get a very strong grasp on financial accounting - Practice writing about what you learn.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "420d39d6d31b8ce2982d48cb4065f66f", "text": "To me that says nothing good about the manager that said it. You can't quantify everything, and managing the intangibles is a big part of what a manager's supposed to do. If they're just dealing in numbers, they're just a bad approximation of an accountant.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "75260e7774ee476972d911e43cb412db", "text": "\"There are some tedious parts for sure - often times people hear \"\"Finance\"\" and think invoices, accounting, etc., but I would say it's less that 10% of my role. I do handle the budgeting process - what I have enjoyed about that is that it offers a window into the strategy of the firm, and whether they are making investments in areas that align with their strategic objectives. This is another good question to ask as you get to know different teams - does the FP&amp;A/Finance group have a seat at the table in strategic discussions. In any corp fin function, I think you will find that the more finance is valued as a partner to the business, the more interesting your work will be.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "24fdc1ed97d7e0a99735fbd9cbb571ac", "text": "Finance encompasses many disciplines. What aspect of finance would you like to work in? A hedge fund analyst is very different from a portfolio manager who is also very different from an accountant. All of those would technically fall under finance, but your background for those careers would be very different.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "257116992df00710237576f5bac1cec2", "text": "In the US there's no significant difference between what a business can deduct and what an individual can deduct. However, you can only deduct what is an expense to produce income. Businesses are allowed to write off salaries, but individuals can't write off what they pay their gardener or maid (at least in the US) If you're a sole proprietor in the business of managing properties - you can definitely deduct payments to gardeners or maids. Business paying for a gardener on a private property not related to producing the income (like CEO's daughter's house) cannot deduct that expense for tax purposes (although it is still recorded in the business accounting books as an expense - with no tax benefit). Businesses are allowed to deduct utility expenses as overhead, individuals cannot Same thing exactly. I can deduct utility expenses for my rental property, but not for my primary residence. Food, shelter, clothing and medical care are fundamental human needs, but we still pay for them with after-tax money, and pay additional sales tax. Only interest (and not principal) on a mortgage is deductible in the US, which is great for people who take out mortgages (and helps banks get more business, I'm sure), but you're out of luck if you pay cash for your house, or are renting. Sales taxes are deductible. You can deduct sales taxes you paid during the year if you itemize your deduction. You can chose - you either deduct the sales taxes or the State income taxes, whatever is more beneficial for you. BTW in many states food and medicine are exempt from sales tax. Medical expenses are deductible if they're significant compared to your total income. You can deduct medical expenses in excess of 10% of your AGI. With the ACA kicking in - I don't see how would people even get to that. If your AGI is low you get subsidies for insurance, and the insurance keeps your expenses capped. For self-employed and employed, insurance premiums are pre-tax (i.e.: not even added to your AGI). Principle for mortgage is not deductible because it is not an expense - it is equity. You own an asset, don't you? You do get the standard deduction, even if your itemized (real) deductions are less - business don't get that. You also get an exemption amount (for your basic living needs), which businesses don't get. You can argue about the amounts - but it is there. In some States (like California) renters get tax breaks for renting, depending on the AGI. CA renters credit is phasing out at AGI of about $60K, which is pretty high.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e8fdb8bd557a09997281ae84779c7003", "text": "I just want to clarify that accounting and finance are two very different fields and if you're looking into finance you should get a finance degree, not an accounting degree. It is much more versatile. Finance is forward-looking, accounting is backward-looking. If you want to take online courses then take them from a reputable state school which offers them. Don't get a degree from an online-only school; even if they aren't a scam, you will have a degree from an online-only school.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "39901689d87f33aa1067214b33177033", "text": "Buy an accounting for MBA's book and go through that. It's the absolute base of finance. I can't see how you can even wrap your head around most of the articles in FT or in the Economist if you don't know what a balance sheet, income statement, cashflow statement or statement of shareholders equity is. This is absolutely a requirement for any understanding of the finance sector, or you'll become just another schmoe on CNBC.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8b27a63bdb0730b88a8c021fafa174de", "text": "Both US GAAP and IFRS are accrual basis frameworks. 99.9% of businesses report under those frameworks (or their local gaaps, but still accrual based). Usually it's public sector entities which are cash-basis in my experience. Anyway, accrual basis has more to do with revenue recognition, not taxation, so that's not really relevant here. The value date of an invoice (ie in which moment it becomes taxable) depends on tax legislation (which sets the rules to determine the so called date of taxable event), not so much on accounting principles. In many cases taxable rules are intertwined with cash collection/payment, however, to prevent creative accounting for tax evasion purposes. For example, provisions for various uncertain future events might be required by accounting rules, but the corresponding expenses are generally not deductible for tax purposes (so you won't be able to deduct them until the event actually occurs and you pay).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "79f1a5f67ed8cd607f935dae6a14f53f", "text": "Not quite the usual DCF or valuation question, but more FP&amp;A: any ideas how to bridge cash forecast to financial forecast? To clarify, financial forecast is mostly done on an accrual basis whereas cash is outflows and inflows. Trying to figure out how to have better visibility into cash discrepancies", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6d19500998654ae4a95b5adbfe8450b8", "text": "\"P/E is price to earnings, or the price of the company divided by annual earnings. Earnings, as reported, are reported on accrual basis. Accrual basis accounting is...without going too deep, like taking a timeline, chopping it up and throwing different bits and pieces of every year into different piles. Costs from 2008 might show up in 2011, or the company might take costs in 2011 that aren't necessarily costs until 2012. Examples would include one-time charges for specific investments, like new shipping centers, servers for their hosting services, etc. Free cash flow is the amount of cash Amazon is generating from its operations. Free cash flow is almost always different from earnings because it's the amount of Earnings + adjustments for non-cash activities - capital expenditures (long-term investments.) Earnings is one thing. Cash generation is a completely different animal. There are plenty of companies that \"\"earn\"\" billions, but only have a few hundred million in cash to show for it because their earnings have to be reinvested into new stuff to grow/maintain the business. To have a free cash flow yield of 2.5% is to have a company valued at $40 for each $1 of free cash flow that the company generates each year. $1/$40 = 2.5%. SGA = Selling, General, &amp; Administrative expenses. These are the costs of running the company - paying salaries, advertising, etc. This cost is second only to COGS, which is Cost of Goods Sold. Currently, Amazon pays $.774 for every $1 product it sells. Its operations add another ~$.20 to that total. After taxes, Amazon keeps about 2 cents of every dollar's worth of product it sells. This 2 cents is Amazon's net margin of 2%. Net margin is (net income)/(sales). If Amazon earned $3 for every $100 in sales it would have a net margin of 3%. Let me know if this makes no sense. If there's anything in particular that is especially confusing, definitely reply and I'll better clarify on specific items. Fire away with any questions, also. I love to discuss finance and accounting.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8f20d184f04a39ab58bee86c211d7adc", "text": "\"To answer your question briefly: net income is affected by many things inside and outside of management control, and must be supplemented by other elements to gain a clear picture of a company's health. To answer your question in-depth, we must look at the history of financial reporting: Initially, accounting was primarily cash-based. That is, a business records a sale when a customer pays them cash, and records expenses when cash goes out the door. This was not a perfectly accurate system, as cashflow might be quite erratic even if sales are stable (collection times may differ, etc.). To combat problems with cash-based accounting, financial reporting moved to an accrual-based system. An accrual is the recording of an item before it has fully completed in a cash transaction. For example, when you ship goods to a customer and they owe you money, you record the revenue - then you record the future collection of cash as a balance sheet item, rather than an income statement item. Another example: if your landlord charges you rent on December 31st for the past year, then in each month leading up to December, you accrue the expense on the income statement, even though you haven't paid the landlord yet. Accrual-based accounting leaves room for accounting manipulation. Enron is a prime example; among other things, they were accruing revenue for sales that had not occurred. This 'accelerated' their income, by having it recorded years before cash was ever collectible. There are specific guidelines that restrict doing things like this, but management will still attempt to accelerate net income as much as possible under accounting guidelines. Public companies have their financial statements audited by unrelated accounting firms - theoretically, they exist to catch material misstatements in the financial statements. Finally, some items impacting profit do not show up in net income - they show up in \"\"Other Comprehensive Income\"\" (OCI). OCI is meant to show items that occurred in the year, but were outside of management control. For example, changes in the value of foreign subsidiaries, due to fluctuations in currency exchange rates. Or changes in the value of company pension plan, which are impacted by the stock market. However, while OCI is meant to pick up all non-management-caused items, it is a grey area and may not be 100% representative of this idea. So in theory, net income is meant to represent items within management control. However, given the grey area in accounting interpretation, net income may be 'accelerated', and it also may include some items that occurred by some 'random business fluke' outside of company control. Finally, consider that financial statements are prepared months after the last year-end. So a company may show great profit for 2015 when statements come out in March, but perhaps Jan-March results are terrible. In conclusion, net income is an attempt at giving what you want: an accurate representation of the health of a company in terms of what is under management control. However it may be inaccurate due to various factors, from malfeasance to incompetence. That's why other financial measures exist - as another way to answer the same question about a company's health, to see if those answers agree. ex: Say net income is $10M this year, but was only $6M last year - great, it went up by $4M! But now assume that Accounts Receivable shows $7M owed to the company at Dec 31, when last year there was only $1M owed to the company. That might imply that there are problems collecting on that additional revenue (perhaps revenue was recorded prematurely, or perhaps they sold to customers who went bankrupt). Unfortunately there is no single number that you can use to see the whole company - different metrics must be used in conjunction to get a clear picture.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e51b2c1c0f24eb4c0d15cd0e8086e9ee", "text": "\"Monkey, Big four accounting firms have FRM departments. Maybe you could apply to one of those. FRM is mostly about Credit Risk (Loans, advances, receivables) and Market Risk (IR, FX). I'm trying to \"\"break into\"\" credit risk myself, but materials are difficult to find. It's about modeling portfolio default probabilities and losses given default. You'll impress with basic programming and advanced prob&amp;stats. Can you ask your professor to recommend a book on Credit Risk? For Market Risk, I know that a lot of the work guys do is pricing IR and FX swaps in Bloomberg. Take a class in derivatives, if you can.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "faf9f9e338f01e03d85205250f7a0f20", "text": "\"You're looking at the \"\"wrong\"\" credit. Here's the Wikipedia article about the bookkeeping (vs the Finance, that you've quoted) term.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "b8d815174889601581e7a93298b8cf93", "text": "A lot of loans are taken out on a fixed rate basis, so the rate is part of the contract and is therefore covered by contract law. If the loan is taken out on a variable basis then in principle the rate can rise within the terms of the contract. If a particular lender tries to raise its rates out of line with the market then its customers will seek alternative, cheaper, loans and pay off their expensive loan if they can. If rates rise sharply in general due to unusual politico-economic circumstances then those with variable rate loans can find themselves in severe trouble. For example the base rate in the UK (and therefore variable mortgage rates closely tied to it) spiked sharply in the late 80s which caused severe stress to a lot of borrowers and undoubtedly pushed some into financial difficulties.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3338ec3d0d5b89a5e26b1e9989b9d8b9", "text": "Interest rates are market driven. They tend to be based on the prime rate set by the federal reserve bank because of the tremendous lending capacity of that institution and that other loan originators will often fund their own lending (at least in part) with fed loans. However, there is no mandatory link between the federal reserve rate and the market rate. No law stipulates that rates cannot rise or fall. They will rise and fall as lenders see necessary to use their capital. Though a lender asking 10% interest might make no loans when others are willing to lend for 9%. The only protection you have is that we are (mostly) economically free. As a borrower, you are protected by the fact that there are many lenders. Likewise, as a lender, because there are many borrowers. Stability is simply by virtue of the fact that one market participant with inordinate pricing will find fewer counterparties to transact.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ce56e7d9f1405f3971ee597f12eac44f", "text": "To protect yourself from an increase in interest rates get a fixed rate loan. The loan terms: interest rate, number of payments, monthly payments will be fixed for the loan. Of course if rate for the rest of the market drops during the period of the loan, you may be able to refinance the loan. But if you can't refinance, or won't refinance, the drop in rates for the rest of the market doesn't help you. If you want to be able to have your rate float you can get a variable rate loan. Of course it can float up, or it can float down. So you take that risk. Because of that risk adjustable rate loans start at a lower rate. If the market interest rate drops far enough many people will refinance into a fixed rate loan at a lower rate than they could have gotten at the start. For adjustable rate loans the lender, during the application process, details how the rate is determined. It is pegged to be x% above some national or international interest rate that they don't have any control over. If that base rate moves then your loan rate may move. They also specify how often it will adjust, and the maximum it can adjust between each adjustments and over the entire life of the loan. That rate that starts initially lower than the fixed rate loan is the enticement that many people have to pick an adjustable rate loan. Some do it because they believe they will payoff the loan before the rates get too high, or they will see enough increase in income so they can afford the higher monthly payment if rates rise. If they are wrong about these things they may find themselves in trouble. The terms of the adjustable rate loan still have to follow the terms of the contract: the lender can't change the % offset or the source used to used to set interest rate.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c0e8abc9b375caa02303b94bdb010151", "text": "There do not appear to be any specific legal measures to prevent bankruptcies. In fact, they seems to be part of the means for which rates are raised, for the consequent aim of lowering inflation. See: The Budgetary Implications of Higher Federal Reserve Board Interest Rates by Dean Baker, Center for Economic and Policy Research. The Federal Reserve Board (Fed) is widely expected to start raising interest rates some time in 2015. The purpose of higher interest rates is to slow the economy and prevent inflation. This is done by reducing the rate of job creation and thereby reducing the ability of workers to achieve wage gains.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "0d5aab7d69f4d7dcc600f2e8dffe876e", "text": "\"House prices do not go up. Land prices in countries with growing economies tend to go up. The price of the house on the land generally depreciates as it wears out. Houses require money; they are called money pits for a reason. You have to replace HVAC periodically, roofs, repairs, rot, foundation problems, leaks, electrical repair; and all of that just reduces the rate at which the house (not the land) loses value. To maintain value (of the house proper), you need to regularly rebuild parts of the house. People expect different things in Kitchens, bathrooms, dining rooms, doors, bedrooms today than they do in the past, and wear on flooring and fixtures accumulate over time. The price of land and is going to be highly determined by the current interest rates. Interest rates are currently near zero; if they go up by even a few percent, we can expect land prices to stop growing and start shrinking, even if the economy continues to grow. So the assumption that land+house prices go up is predicated on the last 35 years of constant rigorous economic growth mixed with interest rate decreases. This is a common illusion, that people assume the recent economic past is somehow the way things are \"\"naturally\"\". But we cannot decrease interest rates further, and rigorous economic growth is far from guaranteed. This is because people price land based on their carrying cost; the cost you have to spend out of your income to have ownership of it. And that is a function of interest rates. Throw in no longer expecting land values to constantly grow and second-order effects that boost land value also go away. Depending on the juristiction, a mortgage is a hugely leveraged investment. It is akin to taking 10,000$, borrowing 40,000$ and buying stock. If the stock goes up, you make almost 5x as much money; if it goes down, you lose 5x as much. And you owe a constant stream of money to service the debt on top of that. If you want to be risk free, work out how you'd deal with the value of your house dropping by 50% together with losing your job, getting a job paying half as much after a period of 6 months unemployment. The new job requires a 1.5 hour commute from your house. Interest rates going up to 12% and your mortgage is up for renewal (in 15 years - they climbed gradually over the time, say), optionally. That is a medium-bad situation (not a great depression scale problem), but is a realistic \"\"bad luck\"\" event that could happen to you. Not likely, but possible. Can you weather it? If so, the risk is within your bounds. Note that going bankrupt may be a reasonable plan to such a bit of bad luck. However, note that had you not purchased the house, you wouldn't be bankrupt in that situation. It is reasonably likely that house prices will, after you spend ~3% of the construction cost of the house per year, pay the mortgage on the land+house, grow at a rate sufficient to offset the cost of renting and generate an economically reasonable level of profit. It is not a risk-free investment. If someone tries to sell you a risk-free investment, they are almost certainly wrong.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d2c3ec39ec3c53bdfdd0d80414f2ef8f", "text": "Inflation can go up for a number of reasons. Boom times can cause inflation, as everyone is making and spending a lot of money, so prices and inflation goes up. In times like these central banks usually increase interest rates to curb spending and thus bring down inflation. By raising interest rates the central bank is increasing the cost of borrowing money. So with high prices and a higher cost to borrowing money, most people start reducing their spending. When this happens businesses sell less stock and have increased costs (due to higher interest rates) so have to lay off staff or reduce their hours at work, so people will have even less money to spend. This causes prices to fall and reduces inflation and can result in a recession. At this point in time central banks start reducing interest rates to make the cost of borrowing money cheaper and stimulate people to start spending again. And so the cycle continues. The result in this case is that inflation itself didn't kerb demand, but was helped along by the central bank rising interest rates. Another reason causing inflation can be a restriction on the supply of certain goods or services. An example we went through about 2 years ago was when floods caused banana crops up in Northern Australia to be devastated. This caused a lack of supply in bananas for almost a year across Australia. The normal price for bananas here is between $1 to $3 per kg. During this period banana prices skyrocketed up to $14 per kg. The result: very few were buying bananas. So the increase in price here caused a reduction in demand directly.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "28187df0941807dfabb9cb1a848d3531", "text": "\"Keep in mind that the Federal Reserve Chairman needs to be very careful with his use of words. Here's what he said: It is arguable that interest rates are too high, that they are being constrained by the fact that interest rates can't go below zero. We have an economy where demand falls far short of the capacity of the economy to produce. We have an economy where the amount of investment in durable goods spending is far less than the capacity of the economy to produce. That suggests that interest rates in some sense should be lower rather than higher. We can't make interest rates lower, of course. (They) only can go down to zero. And again I would argue that a healthy economy with good returns is the best way to get returns to savers. So what does that mean? When he says that \"\"we can't make interest rates lower\"\", that doesn't mean that it isn't possible. He's saying that our demand for goods is lower than our ability to produce them. Negative interest would actually make that problem worse -- if I know that things will cost less in a month, I'm not going to buy anything. The Fed is incentivizing spending by lowering the cost of capital to zero. By continuing this policy, they are eventually going to bring on inflation, which will reduce the value of the currency -- which gives people and companies that are sitting on money an dis-incentive to continue hoarding it.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b45d931f0cfba1a028cae1a5bc8f4399", "text": "Fundamentally interest rates reflect the time preference people place on money and the things money can buy. If I have a high time preference then I prefer money in my hand versus money promised to me at some date in the future. Thus, I will only loan my money to someone if they offer me an incentive which would be an amount of money to be received in the future that is larger than the amount of money I’m giving the debtor in the present (i.e. the interest rate). Many factors go into my time preference determination. My demand for cash (i.e. my cash balance), the credit rating of the borrower, the length of the loan, and my expectation of the change in currency value are just a few of the factors that affect what interest rate I will loan money. The first loan I make will have a lower interest rate than the last loan, ceteris paribus. This is because my supply of cash diminishes with each loan which makes my remaining cash more valuable and a higher interest rate will be needed to entice me to make additional loans. This is the theory behind why interest rates will rise when QE3 or QEinfinity ever stops. QE is where the Federal Reserve cartel prints new money to purchase bonds from cartel banks. If QE slows or ends the supply of money will stop increasing which will make cash more valuable and higher interest rates will be needed to entice creditors to loan money. Note that increasing the stock of money does not necessarily result in lower interest rates. As stated earlier, the change in value of the currency also affects the interest rate lenders are willing to accept. If the Federal Reserve cartel deposited $1 million everyday into every US citizen’s bank account it wouldn’t take long before lenders demanded very high interest rates as compensation for the decrease in the value of the currency. Does the Federal Reserve cartel affect interest rates? Yes, in two ways. First, as mentioned before, it prints new money that is loaned to the government. It either purchases the bonds directly or purchases the bonds from cartel banks which give them cash to purchase more government bonds. This keeps demand high for government bonds which lowers the yield on government bonds (yields move inverse to the price of the bond). The Federal Reserve cartel also can provide an unlimited amount of funds at the Federal Funds rate to the cartel member banks. Banks can borrow at this rate and then proceed to make loans at a higher rate and pocket the difference. Remember, however, that the Federal Reserve cartel is not the only market participant. Other bond holders, such as foreign governments and pension funds, buy and sell US bonds. At some point they could demand higher rates. The Federal Reserve cartel, which currently holds close to 17% of US public debt, could attempt to keep rates low by printing new money to buy all existing US bonds to prevent the yield on bonds from going up. At that point, however, holding US dollars becomes very dangerous as it is apparent the Federal Reserve cartel is just a money printing machine for the US government. That’s when most people begin to dump dollars en masse.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "15e8bee2da522fc40bf064208134acbd", "text": "yield on a Treasury bond increases This primarily happens when the government increases interest rates or there is too much money floating around and the government wants to suck out money from the economy, this is the first step not the other way around. The most recent case was Fed buying up bonds and hence releasing money in to the economy so companies and people start investing to push the economy on the growth path. Banks normally base their interest rates on the Treasury bonds, which they use as a reference rate because of the probability of 0 default. As mortgage is a long term investment, so they follow the long duration bonds issued by the Fed. They than put a premium on the money lent out for taking that extra risk. So when the governments are trying to suck out money, there is a dearth of free flowing money and hence you pay more premium to borrow because supply is less demand is more, demand will eventually decrease but not in the short run. Why do banks increase the rates they loan money at when people sell bonds? Not people per se, but primarily the central bank in a country i.e. Fed in US.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "272fde803a207bd1d4ff77e0cfc80790", "text": "Another option is to short whatever interest rate you think will go up. For example, if you think that interest on treasuries will go up, then short treasuries.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "463fdf12613144bedc0bfe74333f35f4", "text": "\"How should I allocate short-term assets in a rising-interest rate environment? Assuming that the last part is correct, there could be bear bond funds that short bonds that could work well as a way to invest. However, bear in that the the \"\"rising-interest rate environment\"\" is part of the basis that may or may not be true in the end as I'm not sure I've seen anything to tell me why rates couldn't stay where they are for another couple of years or more. Long-Term Capital Management would be a cautionary tale before about bonds that had assumptions that backfired when something that wasn't supposed to happen, happened. Thus, while you can say there is \"\"rising-interest rate environment\"\" what else are you prepared to assume and how certain are you of that happening? An alternate theory here would be that \"\"junk bonds\"\" may do well because the economy has to be heating up for rates to rise and thus the bonds that are priced down so much because of default risk may turn out to not go bust and thus could do well. Course this would carry the \"\"Your mileage may vary\"\" and without a working time machine I couldn't say which funds will be good and which would suck. As for what I would do if I was dealing with my own money: Money market funds and CDs would likely be my suggestion for the short-term where I want to prevent principal risk. This is likely what I would do if I believed the rising rate environment is here.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fe4cac5d97ea232f71072bed556b83c2", "text": "Great reply. This is one of reasons why I like this subreddit. I thought that fed interest are far more important that you state. Rate is low + economy is booming (lender thinks there is good chance of repayment), banks loan money much more willingly (reserves are covered by cheap fed loans -&gt; greater profit). That should significantly affect money supply.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "aefe743b20c09ba211183e7b92a884ed", "text": "Increasing rates from .75% to 1% is an attempt to control debt. The new 1% rate drives down demand for bonds based on the old .75% rate and drives down demand for stocks who have decrease profit because they pay more interest on debt. This is the federal reserves primary tool controling inflation. 1% is what the banks pay to borrow money, they base their lending rates on this 1% figure. If a person can guarantee a .75% return on money borrowed at 1%, they will opt to save and instead lend their money out at 1%.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8ab90eea050860a8a0fd05acc26713a6", "text": "\"To understand the Twist, you need to understand what the Yield Curve is. You must also understand that the price of debt is inverse to the interest rate. So when the price of bonds (or notes or bills) rises, that means the current price goes up, and the yield to maturity has gone down. Currently (Early 2012) the short term rate is low, close to zero. The tools the fed uses, setting short term rates for one, is exhausted, as their current target is basically zero for this debt. But, my mortgage is based on 10yr rates, not 1 yr, or 30 day money. The next step in the fed's effort is to try to pull longer term rates down. By buying back 10 year notes in this quantity, the fed impacts the yield at that point on the curve. Buying (remember supply/demand) pushes the price up, and for debt, a higher price equates to lower yield. To raise the money to do this, they will sell short term debt. These two transactions effectively try to \"\"twist\"\" the curve to pull long term rates lower and push the economy.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6137d88bfb2b541dee593b29f485261c", "text": "\"True. My thinking is, the higher the rates are, the less people you'll have borrowing, the less chance of people defaulting, more people buying with flat cash, and of course cheaper housing prices. Whereas with low interest rates, you'll have more people borrowing (thus, increasing the likelihood of more people defaulting), more people \"\"buying\"\" homes (technically not buying, technically just \"\"borrowing\"\" money and putting down mortgages), and more expensive housing prices. Quite frankly, I think the way that the western world can solve its issue with unaffordable housing is by raising the interest rates to at least the double digits, like they once were (when housing was still cheap).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "028f0077a16460f918c8515dff3fc444", "text": "I know that assets like bonds have prices that have an inverse relationship with interest rates, but what other assets do as well? I'm a bit new to finance and all that so I'm trying to learn. Would real estate prices be high as well? If so, why?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3d5f5f1829782f7f48ca417c3f0e1b75", "text": "Is your question academic curiosity or are you thinking of buying bonds? Be aware that bond interest rates are near all-time lows, and if interest rates were to rise, the prices of bonds could fall. Those buying bonds today are taking unusually large risk of capital loss.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "055049ff07087e73c9e065bffc2b48a0", "text": "\"On a longer time scale, the plot thickens: It almost looks random. A large drop in real rates in the mid-70s, a massive spike in the early 80s, followed by a slow multi-decade decline. The chaos doesn't seem to be due to interest rates. They steadily climbed and steadily fell: All that's left is inflation: First, real rates should be expected to pay a moderate rate, so nominal rates will usually be higher than inflation. However, interest rates are very stable over long time periods while inflation is not. Economists call this type of phenomenon \"\"sticky pricing\"\", where the price, interest rates in this case, do not change much despite the realities surrounding them. But the story is a little more complicated. In the early 1970s, Nixon had an election to win and tried to lessen the impacts of recession by increasing gov't spending, not raising taxes, and financing through the central bank, causing inflation. The strategy failed, but he was reelected anyways. This set the precedent for the hyperinflation of the 1970s that ended abruptly by Reagan at the beginning of his first term in the early 1980s. Again, interest rates remained sticky, so real rates spiked. Now, the world is not growing, almost stagnating. Demand for equity is somewhat above average, but because corporate income is decelerating, and the developed world's population is aging, demand for investment income is skyrocketing. As demand rises, so does the price, which for an investor is a form of inverse of the interest rate. Future demand is probably best answered by forecasters, and the monetarist over and undertones still dominating the Federal Reserve show that they have finally learned after 100 years that inflation is best kept \"\"low and stable\"\": But what happens if growth in the US suddenly spikes, inflation rises, and the Federal Reserve must sell all of the long term assets it has bet so heavily on quickly while interest rates rise? Inflation may not be intended, but it is not impossible.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "09341e6010c64a265197ec01f49e1ee6", "text": "As no one has mentioned them I will... The US Treasury issues at least two forms of bonds that tend to always pay some interest even when prevailing rates are zero or negative. The two that I know of are TIPS and I series bonds. Below are links to the descriptions of these bonds: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/indiv/research/indepth/tips/res_tips.htm http://www.treasurydirect.gov/indiv/research/indepth/ibonds/res_ibonds.htm", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "f202937ec26c18b06aa1ba3356b006ad", "text": "Yes, somebody could buy the shares, receive the dividend, and then sell the shares back. However, the price he would get when he sells the shares back is, ignoring other reasons for the price to change, exactly the amount he paid minus the dividend.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9b7fe43f3bcf3c5599e9725f67365179", "text": "The moment the dividend is announced, especially from a company that doesn't normally pay dividends, the dividend is factored into everybody's analysis. In the absence of any other news the price of apple would be expected to drop once the dividend in locked in. Why would I buy shares from you at full price one day after the dividend is paid, if I will have to wait for the next dividend? Also keep in mind the dividend was announced on July 24th, and is given to shareholders of record on August 13th. You are way behind the curve.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a7bb7d45b47d80bb49f11fcf8f92205c", "text": "No, the dividends can't be exploited like that. Dividends settlement are tied to an ex-dividend date. The ex-dividend, is the day that allows you to get a dividend if you own the stock. Since a buyer of the stock after this date won't get the dividend, the price usually drop by the amount of the dividend. In your case the price of a share would lose $2.65 and you will be credited by $2.65 in cash such that your portfolio won't change in value due to the dividend. Also, you can't exploit the drop in price by short-selling, as you would be owing the dividend to the person lending you the stock for the short sale. Finally, the price of the stock at the ex-dividend will also be affected by the supply and demand, such that you can't be precisely sure of the drop in price of the security.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4192adc2bae1410a5825b4a8f0fa431a", "text": "In an ideal world Say on 24th July the share price of Apple was $600. Everyone knows that they will get the $ 2.65 on 16th August. There is not other news that is affecting the price. You want to go in and buy the shares on 16th Morning at $600 and then sell it on 17th August at $600. Now in this process you have earned sure shot $2.65/- Or in an ideal world when the announcement is made on 24th July, why would I sell it at $600, when I know if I wait for few more days I will get $2.65/- so i will be more inclined to sell it at $602.65 /- ... so on 16th Aug after the dividend is paid out, the share price will be back to $600/- In a real world, dividend or no dividend the share price would be moving up or down ... Notice that the dividend amount is less than 1% of the stock price ... stock prices change more than this percentage ... so if you are trying to do what is described in paragraph one, then you may be disappointed as the share price may go down as well by more than $2.65 you have made", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e80cc5163e18d81954a1a7decbd86e89", "text": "\"In addition to the other answers it's also noteworthy that the stock exchanges themselves adjust the price quotes via their ex-div mechanism. All limit orders present in the book when the stock goes ex-div will be adjusted by the dividend. Which means you can't even get \"\"accidentally\"\" filled in the very unlikely case that everyone forgot to adjust their quotes.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "c82725f2c339667dd6c65fc2bae50c3e", "text": "I'm trying to think it out, but I feel like it would be hard to justify using potential profit sources as material for dividends. Especially your example of wine. Wouldn't it be counterintuitive to take a hit to sales, while still having the cost of production?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "568be6cee03e6a396cb0454b1526ef50", "text": "Yes, it is possible. But why would someone take full responsibility, if you're the one enjoying the profits? You'll have to pay your administrator a lot, and probably also develop a profit sharing plan to encourage success. What you're looking, essentially is to be a passive shareholder, and not participate in any management decisions at all. Depending on your location, it will pose additional disadvantages for you (for example, in the US, that would force you to structure your business as a C-Corp, vs more advantageous S-Corp).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "abb4cdd47e8ddd5e34572e51cc065730", "text": "Shareholders can [often] vote for management to pay dividends Shareholders are sticking around if they feel the company will be more valuable in the future, and if the company is a target for being bought out. Greater fool theory", "title": "" }, { "docid": "81fc4819252bbfa4014d3241c01a80a7", "text": "You could hold a long position in some company XXXX and then short your own shares (assuming your broker will let you do that). The dividend that would have gone to you would then go to whoever is holding the shares you short sold. You just don't get a dividend. If you're going to short in a smart way... do it on a stock you otherwise believe in, but use it to minimize the pull-backs on the way up.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9a358c70784ab3352e50e05bdf0ec7f6", "text": "I don't think the method falls short, it's the premise that is wrong. If the dividend stream really did grow faster than the cost of capital indefinitely, eventually the company behind the share would become larger than the entire economy. Logically, at some point, the growth must slow down.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "35cac291694412e8144b9dad45f93816", "text": "\"I was just going by [this](http://evonomics.com/amazon-accounting-corporate-profits-rich-peoples-income-invisible-bezos/) source and many like it. They might not be reffering to _literal_ dividends but increased stock value. Ultimately, I was responding to that idiot who said \"\"But a business making no profits to avoid tax is the worst tax planning advice I have ever seen!\"\"...\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b4fd3346b362b43bc4afa5ecfc367ae3", "text": "\"I'd agree that this can seem a little unfair, but it's an unavoidable consequence of the necessary practicality of paying out dividends periodically (rather than continuously), and differential taxation of income and capital gains. To see more clearly what's going on here, consider buying stock in a company with extremely simple economics: it generates a certain, constant earnings stream equivalent to $10 per share per annum, and redistributes all of that profit as periodic dividends (let's say once annually). Assume there's no intrinsic growth, and that the firm's instrinsic value (which we'll say is $90 per share) is completely neutral to any other market factors. Under these economics, this stock price will show a \"\"sawtooth\"\" evolution, accruing from $90 to $100 over the course of a year, and resetting back down to $90 after each dividend payment. Now, if I am invested in this stock for some period of time, the fair outcome would be that I receive an appropriately time-weighted share of the $10 annual earnings per share, less my tax. If I am invested for an exact calendar year, this works as I'd expect: the stock price on any given day in the year will be the same as it was exactly one year earlier, so I'll realise zero capital gain, but I'll have collected a $10 taxed dividend along the way. On the other hand, what if I am invested for exactly half a year, spanning a dividend payment? I receive a dividend payment of $10 less tax, but I make a capital loss of -$5. Overall, pre-tax, I'm up $5 per share as expected. However, the respective tax treatment of the dividend payment (which is classed as income) and the capital gains is likely to be different. In particular, to benefit from the \"\"negative\"\" taxation of the capital loss I need to have some positive capital gain elsewhere to offset it - if I can't do that, I'm much worse off compared to half the full-year return. Further, even if I can offset against a gain elsewhere the effective taxation rates are likely to be different - but note that this could work for or against me (if my capital gains rate is greater than my income tax rate I'd actually benefit). And if I'm invested for half a year, but not spanning a dividend, I make $5 of pure capital gains, and realise a different effective taxation rate again. In an ideal world I'd agree that the effective taxation rate wouldn't depend on the exact timing of my transactions like this, but in reality it's unavoidable in the interests of practicality. And so long as the rules are clear, I wouldn't say it's unfair per se, it just adds a bit of complexity.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "62d2660987fbf0ed6676574ce9a3287c", "text": "There are indeed various strategies to make money from this. As Ben correctly said, the stock price drops correspondingly on the dividend date, so the straightforward way doesn't work. What does work are schemes that involve dividend taxation based on nationality, and schemes based on American Options where people can use market rules to their advantage if some options are not exercised.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e05a30c4c2dd0cf27738493f5d1a2b47", "text": "This investment strategy may have tax advantages. In some countries, income received from dividends is taxed as income, whereas profits on share trades are capital gains. If you have already exceeded your tax-free income limit for the year, but not your capital gains tax allowance, it may be preferable to make a dealing profit rather than an investment income. These arrangements are called a bed-and-breakfast.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2f950e48b5b647f608e84a5e1e387e60", "text": "Yes, as long as you own the shares before the ex-dividend date you will get the dividends. Depending on your instructions to your broker, you can receive cash dividends or you can have the dividends reinvested in more shares of the company. There are specific Dividend ReInvestment Plans (or DRIPs) if you are after stock growth rather than income from dividend payments.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ee77ed54bd1eff8264dd44dd0dfa186a", "text": "Perhaps someone has an investment objective different than following the market. If one is investing in stocks with an intent on getting dividend income then there may be other options that make more sense than owning the whole market. Secondly, there is Slice and Dice where one may try to find a more optimal investment idea by using a combination of indices and so one may choose to invest 25% into each of large-cap value, large-cap growth, small-cap value and small-cap growth with an intent to pick up benefits that have been seen since 1927 looking at Fama and French's work.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c9b6e76052a90103ff5a9ddac9ac31a5", "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.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0fd8ecaa4e48f0176054c42c39d7c412", "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).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e9bfe1b6f211d060b12f55de2c24e989", "text": "You shouldn't technically be able to over pay. I have some share dividends set to pay into my account but one of them took me over the limit so the payment was diverted to another account and they sent me a letter. Pretty sure they would do this with any payment.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3e7480b3706084b79a9015750488260b", "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.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "4f36107f1dd32de8bf61061bd5578b52", "text": "\"Uncertainty has very far reaching effects. Oil is up ~100% since February and down ~40% from it's 52 week high (and down even more on a longer timeline). It's not exactly a stable investment vehicle and moves a few percent each day on basically nothing. A lot of securities will be bouncing around for the next couple weeks at least while folks remain uncertain about what the \"\"brexit\"\" will actually mean.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "18db0e4ca9c70f63f9dfd4813596faf3", "text": "\"I'll take a stab at this question and offer a disclosure: I recently got in RING (5.1), NEM (16.4), ASX:RIO (46.3), and FCX (8.2). While I won't add to my positions at current prices, I may add other positions, or more to them if they fall further. This is called catching a falling dagger and it's a high risk move. Cons (let's scare everyone away) Pros The ECB didn't engage in as much QE as the market hoped and look at how it reacted, especially commodities. Consider that the ECB's actions were \"\"tighter\"\" than expected and the Fed plans to raise rates, or claims so. Commodities should be falling off a cliff on that news. While most American/Western attention is on the latest news or entertainment, China has been seizing commodities around the globe like crazy, and the media have failed to mention that even with its market failing, China is still seizing commodities. If China was truly panicked about its market, it would stop investing in other countries and commodities and just bail out its own country. Yet, it's not doing that. The whole \"\"China crisis\"\" is completely oversold in the West; China is saying one thing (\"\"oh no\"\"), but doing another (using its money to snap up cheap commodities). Capitalism works because hard times strengthen good companies. You know how many bailouts ExxonMobil has received compared to Goldman Sachs? You know who owns more real wealth? Oil doesn't get bailed out, banks do, and banks can't innovate to save their lives, while oil innovates. Hard times strengthen good companies. This means that this harsh bust in commodities will separate the winners from the losers and history shows the winners do very well in the long run. Related to the above point: how many bailouts from tax payers do you think mining companies will get? Zero. At least you're investing in companies that don't steal your money through government confiscation. If you're like me, you can probably find at least 9 people out of 10 who think \"\"investing in miners is a VERY BAD idea.\"\" What do they think is a good idea? \"\"Duh, Snapchat and Twitter, bruh!\"\" Then there's the old saying, \"\"Be greedy when everyone's fearful and fearful when everyone's greedy.\"\" Finally, miners own hard assets. Benjamin Graham used to point this out with the \"\"dead company\"\" strategy like finding a used cigarette with one more smoke. You're getting assets cheap, while other investors are overpaying for stocks, hoping that the Fed unleashes moar QE! Think strategy here: seize cheap assets, begin limiting the supply of these assets (if you're the saver and not borrowing), then watch as the price begins to rise for them because of low supply. Remember, investors are part owners in companies - take more control to limit the supply. Using Graham's analogy, stock pile those one-puff cigarettes for a day when there's a low supply of cigarettes. Many miners are in trouble now because they've borrowed too much and must sell at a low profit, or in some cases, must lose. When you own assets debt free, you can cut the supply. This will also help the Federal Reserve, who's been desperately trying to figure out how to raise inflation. The new patriotic thing to do is stimulate the economy by sending inflation up, and limiting the supply here is key.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d3c891391da74a56a1a8f14f358283f3", "text": "\"Not to mention that many oil fields don't make a profit below $40/barrel. The Saudis over-produced on purpose based on that premise, betting that they could drive much of the growing North American production out of business by keeping the price below the point where tar sands and hydraulic fracking could be profitable. If oil dropped to $10/barrel, few countries would bother pumping it. While Saudi Arabia and some of the UAE could make a profit at that point (for now), even Iraq would be losing money. https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/03/19/you-wont-believe-what-saudi-arabias-oil-production.aspx That reduced production would drive the price right back up, since oil is still used in plastics, shipping, road construction, etc. Even if every car being sold becomes electric overnight, *and* all the electric power plants become wind, nuclear or solar based tomorrow, we'd still have a decade or more of existing ICE cars on the road. It's not the world would stop using oil in the next 6-8 years just because \"\"investment pours into electric cars\"\". If anything, a drop to $10/barrel would slow the move away from oil significantly; what incentive would people have to buy a more expensive electric car when gas at the pump is suddenly is $1 again?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b6cbf93cdf03f9730462f5dd3d3dd2d7", "text": "\"Just to get the ball rolling, here's an answer: it won't affect you in the slightest. The pound happened to be tumbling anyway. (If you read \"\"in the papers\"\" that Brexit is \"\"making the pound fall\"\", that's as valuable as anything else you've ever read in the papers.) Currencies go up and down drastically all the time, and there's nothing you can do about it. We by fluke once bought a house in Australia when that currency was very low; over the next couple years the currency basically doubled (I mean per the USD) and we happened to sell it; we made a 1/2 million measured in USD. Just a fluke. I've had the opposite happen on other occasions over the decades. But... Currency changes mean absolutely nothing if you're in that country. The example from (2) was only relevant because we happened to be moving in and out of Aus. My various Australian friends didn't even notice that their dollar went from .5 to 1 in terms of USD (how could it matter to them?) All sorts of things drastically affect the general economy of a given country. (Indeed, note that a falling currency is often seen as a very good thing for a given nation's economy: conspiracy theorists in the states are forever complaining that ) Nobody has the slightest clue if \"\"Brexit\"\" will be good bad or indifferent for the UK. Anything could happen. It could be the beginning of an incredible period of growth for the UK (after all, why does Brussels not want your country to leave - goodwill?) and your house could triple in value in a year. Or, your house price could tumble to half in a year. Nobody has the slightest clue, whatsoever about the effects on the \"\"economy\"\" of a country going forward, of various inputs.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8fb678e0d9a3b2ea61fa7340500ea4d0", "text": "\"once again: the problems you have commented about (i.e. decline of UK manufacturing and foreign policy) and your very crude version of historical causality, combined with the policy conclusions you have suggested (the need for common immigration and policy regime with the US) suggest to me that either you haven't quite grasped post-war euopean history, or you've ventured into the realm of conspiracy theory. PS: \"\"when they're charismatically explained in such a systematic and specific way\"\" is not a phrase commonly used in english. explain what you mean by that, please.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9aacb0fcfba729270213c796ce604bd8", "text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-19/oil-s-slide-stalls-as-investors-weigh-stockpiles-against-libya) reduced by 70%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; The amount of oil stored in tankers reached a 2017 high of 111.9 million barrels earlier this month, according to Paris-based tracking company Kpler SAS. Oil has slipped below $45 a barrel as supplies in the U.S. remain plentiful and drillers continue to add rigs, raising concerns output cuts by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries and allies including Russia won&amp;#039;t succeed in draining bloated stockpiles. &gt; Crude stockpiles remain more than 100 million barrels above the five-year average, according to data from the EIA. American production has climbed to 9.33 million barrels a day through June 9, near the highest since August 2015. &gt; Libya is pumping about 900,000 barrels a day, according to a person with direct knowledge of the matter, who asked not to be identified for lack of authority to speak to the media. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6ietvj/oil_prices_are_tumbling_more_than_2_toward_43/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~148648 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*: **barrel**^#1 **percent**^#2 **August**^#3 **U.S.**^#4 **Oil**^#5\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2e23c82ab6bb3ab7a9a80b14ade2e0cd", "text": "There's a concept called interest rate parity, which sort of says that you cannot profit on the difference in interest rates. This difference accounts for the predicted movement in exchange rates as well, along with the stability of the currencies.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f91f4a2c1fefc9609804c9797e792abd", "text": "The British didn't choose to stay away, they were forced out (as was Sweden) by their fucked up policies and being unable to defend their peg against the (trading only at the time) euro currency. They lost a fuckload in the process and when it became apparent that those that understand market arbitrage wouldn't let up (what killed Mexico/Argentia Peso as well), they backed out.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "17c44572b1e35d0cce607f02b29978a4", "text": "Because the US Energy Information Administration at the time was run by the Bush Administration, which loved fossil fuels but hated renewables, so they predicted that coal and oil demand would soar while renewables would stall. They also predicted that overall energy demand would rise (so we must dig more coal!) yet it actually fell due to efficiency improvements. One suspects they knew all their forecasts were complete crap.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1e4c595ad2869833b60878f92c7056e1", "text": "Well, considering the US barely buys any Saudi oil...anywhere in the US is usually a good assumption. Of course that completely ignores the global nature of oil prices and why you don't actually have to buy from them for them to benefit from the demand in the US.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ef1895dfad92b13fa889c781ca9d3f62", "text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-economy-idUKKBN1AJ0ZV) reduced by 77%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; &amp;quot;Firms&amp;#039; prospects for the coming year have slipped to a level which has previously been indicative of the economy stalling or even contracting ... largely reflecting heightened uncertainty about the economic outlook and Brexit process,&amp;quot; said Chris Williamson, IHS Markit&amp;#039;s chief business economist. &gt; A rise in inflation to a near four-year high - largely driven by the fall in the pound since last year&amp;#039;s referendum - has prompted a minority of BoE policymakers to call for a reversal of last year&amp;#039;s cut in interest rates. &gt; Prime Minister Theresa May unexpectedly failed to win an outright majority in a parliamentary election in June, and with less than two years before Britain leaves the European Union, her party has yet to agree a clear set of negotiating goals. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6rc2bx/britain_experiencing_sluggish_economic_growth/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~182238 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*: **year**^#1 **economy**^#2 **since**^#3 **Britain**^#4 **June**^#5\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "80e061f28281f79fcdea24712b43a2ab", "text": "\"US is the major oil consumer, and produces only about half as much - so the lower the prices, the better for it. As for the oil industry in the US - it will never fail since government just prints more money to prop it up regardless of its real economic effectiveness: it needs it to defang OPEC from being able to pull off another 1974 Oil Embargo. Hell, Gore even invented the \"\"global warming\"\" just for that purpose!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a32103579ed3ba3b8902f81d055cf3ca", "text": "There are two impacts: First, if the pound is dropping, then buying houses becomes cheaper for foreign investors, so they will tend to buy more houses as investments, which will drive house prices up. Second, in theory you might be able to get a mortgage in a foreign country, let's say in Euro, and you might hope that over the next few years the pound would go up again, and the Euros that you owe the foreign bank become worth less.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2ce1cee0983831c85823c1166a154b4e", "text": "\"In layman's terms, oil on the commodities market has a \"\"spot price\"\" and a \"\"future price\"\". The spot price is what the last guy paid to buy a barrel of oil right now (and thus a pretty good indicator of what you'll have to pay). The futures price is what the last guy paid for a \"\"futures contract\"\", where they agreed to buy a barrel of oil for $X at some point in the future. Futures contracts are a form of hedging; a futures contract is usually sold at a price somewhere between the current spot price and the true expected future spot price; the buyer saves money versus paying the spot price, while the seller still makes a profit. But, the buyer of a futures contract is basically betting that the spot price as of delivery will be higher, while the seller is betting it will be lower. Futures contracts are available for a wide variety of acceptable future dates, and form a curve when plotted on a graph that will trend in one direction or the other. Now, as Chad said, oil companies basically get their cut no matter what. Oil stocks are generally a good long-term bet. As far as the best short-term time to buy in to an oil stock, look for very short windows when the spot and near-future price of gasoline is trending downward but oil is still on the uptick. During those times, the oil companies are paying their existing (high) contracts for oil, but when the spot price is low it affects futures prices, which will affect the oil companies' margins. Day traders will see that, squawk \"\"the sky is falling\"\" and sell off, driving the price down temporarily. That's when you buy in. Pretty much the only other time an oil stock is a guaranteed win is when the entire market takes a swan dive and then bottoms out. Oil has such a built-in demand, for the foreseeable future, that regardless of how bad it gets you WILL make money on an oil stock. So, when the entire market's in a panic and everyone's heading for gold, T-debt etc, buy the major oil stocks across the spectrum. Even if one stock tanks, chances are really good that another company will see that and offer a buyout, jacking the bought company's stock (which you then sell and reinvest the cash into the buying company, which will have taken a hit on the news due to the huge drop in working capital). Of course, the one thing to watch for in the headlines is any news that renewables have become much more attractive than oil. You wait; in the next few decades some enterprising individual will invent a super-efficient solar cell that provides all the power a real, practical car will ever need, and that is simultaneously integrated into wind farms making oil/gas plants passe. When that happens oil will be a thing of the past.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1573214cfdfec4d6fa1fe1498bde43ed", "text": "Royalty trusts track oil prices (they're a pure play on ownership of a portfolio of mineral rights and do not otherwise have the operations that the oil companies themselves have). Many publicly traded ones listed at the embedded wikipedia link. Oil tankers are having a bang up business right now as described in the article, but that's because of the low prices and flood of product from the middle east. The article notes that inventories are near capacity, so terminals and pipelines may be in for a few good years, though these do not directly track oil price. However, as a way to bet on oil or oil services, many terminals and pipelines are organized as publicly traded master limited partnerships or MLPs, often spun out of a major oil company for tax reasons, allowing fine-grained investment in specific assets.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "008101757be540c44fd26f9fcc236c2a", "text": "The prices dropped because the scandal could mean: This some people estimated that the company could lose money, or have smaller profit. Thus each share was worth less money going forward. The mechanism is that in order to sell their shares the current share owners had to settle for lower prices.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "fcd9990896be0b5c627ec5da25a4af72", "text": "I think George's answer explains fairly well why the brokerages don't allow this - it's not an exchange rule, it's just that the brokerage has to have the shares to lend, and normally those shares come from people's margin, which is impossible on a non-marginable stock. To address the question of what the alternatives are, on popular stocks like SIRI, a deep In-The-Money put is a fairly accurate emulation of an actual short interest. If you look at the options on SIRI you will see that a $3 (or higher) put has a delta of -$1, which is the same delta as an actual short share. You also don't have to worry about problems like margin calls when buying options. The only thing you have to worry about is the expiration date, which isn't generally a major issue if you're buying in-the-money options... unless you're very wrong about the direction of the stock, in which case you could lose everything, but that's always a risk with penny stocks no matter how you trade them. At least with a put option, the maximum amount you can lose is whatever you spent on the contract. With a short sale, a bull rush on the stock could potentially wipe out your entire margin. That's why, when betting on downward motion in a microcap or penny stock, I actually prefer to use options. Just be aware that option contracts can generally only move in increments of $0.05, and that your brokerage will probably impose a bid-ask spread of up to $0.10, so the share price has to move down at least 10 cents (or 10% on a roughly $1 stock like SIRI) for you to just break even; definitely don't attempt to use this as a day-trading tool and go for longer expirations if you can.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "13d344c7642c5990a4d0b92f3dcccdf9", "text": "A bit of poking around brought me to this thread on the Motley Fool, asking the same basic question: I think the problem is the stock price. For a stock to be sold short, it has to be marginable which means it has to trade over $ 5.00. The broker, therefore, can't borrow the stock for you to sell short because it isn't held in their clients' margin accounts. My guess is that Etrade, along with other brokers, simply exclude these stocks for short selling. Ivestopedia has an explanation of non-marginable securities. Specific to stocks under $5: Other securities, such as stocks with share prices under $5 or with extremely high betas, may be excluded at the discretion of the broker itself.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e8d00d25fc080b968a4da21485d99698", "text": "Timothy Sykes specializes in this type of trade, according to his website. He has some recommendations for brokers that allow shorting low-priced stocks:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0336ebcbd40f6c26b451f893adc916c5", "text": "If this is the initial transaction, the rules of a short margin account say that if you shorted 1000 share of ABC at $5/share your credit balance would be $5000 from the short plus you would have to put up yourself $5000 cash or $10,000 of marginal securities. So this is not really leveraging using margin. You have to put in just as much as the short generates. Is that what this relates to? Once the initial purchase has been made the minimum maintenance for a stock trading under $5 per share is 100% of the short market value in the margin account or $2.50 per share whichever is greater. For stock trading at $5/share or greater the minimum maintenance requirement is $5/share or 30% of the short market value, whichever is greater. The minimum maintenance requirements can be tighter.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "59124ea66bbedf0f81f3198152140671", "text": "I don't know what restrictions are put on the average employee at your company. In my case, we were told we were not permitted to either short the stock, or to trade in it options. That said, I was successful shorting the exact number of shares I'd be buying at the 6 month close, the same day the purchase price would be set. I then requested transfer of the stock purchase to my broker where the long and short netted to zero. The return isn't 15%, it's 100/85 or 17.6% for an average 3 months they have your money. So do the math on APR. (Higher if the stock has risen over 6 months and you get the lower price from 6 months prior.) My method was riskless, as far as I am concerned. I did this a dozen times. The stock itself was +/- 4% by the time the shares hit, so in the end it was an effort, mostly to sleep better. I agree with posts suggesting the non-zero risk of a 20% 4 day drop.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b54bc28354a6cbbc8ecf92e5333beb93", "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.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2946b37fe124978cc75eb71e8f0a2c12", "text": "\"A simple way to ask the question might be to say \"\"why can't I just use the same trick with my own shares to make money on the way down? Why is borrowing someone else's shares necessary to make the concept a viable one? Why isn't it just the inverse of 'going long'?\"\" A simple way to think about it is this: to make money by trading something, you must buy it for less than you sell it for. This applies to stocks like anything else. If you believe the price will go up, then you can buy them first and sell them later for a higher price. But if you believe the price will go down, the only way to buy low and sell high is to sell first and buy later. If you buy the stock and it goes down, any sale you make will lose you money. I'm still not sure I fully understand the point of your example, but one thing to note is that in both cases (i.e., whether you buy the share back at the end or not), you lost money. You say that you \"\"made $5 on the share price dropping\"\", but that isn't true at all: you can see in your example that your final account balance is negative in both cases. You paid $20 for the shares but only got $15 back; you lost $5 (or, in the other version of your example, paid $20 and got back $5 plus the depreciated shares). If you had bought the shares for $20 and sold them for, say, $25, then your account would end up with a positive $5 balance; that is what a gain would look like. But you can't achieve that if you buy the shares for $20 and later sell them for less. At a guess, you seem to be confusing the concept of making a profit with the concept of cutting your losses. It is true that if you buy the shares for $20 and sell them for $15, you lose only $5, whereas if you buy them for $20 and sell for $10, you lose the larger amount of $10. But those are both losses. Selling \"\"early\"\" as the price goes down doesn't make you any money; it just stops you from losing more money than you would if you sold later.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fbac1c13951f063ca7baffe823cd5a99", "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.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8efad011153e1a252633e7cf601a316f", "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.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "eb0b1106505cc2f5eb4c597f84834d88", "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?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "04df881344f4003c31ca6fb7b9d516fe", "text": "This is a gross simplification as there are a few different ways to do this. The principle overall is the same though. To short a stock, you borrow X shares from a third party and sell them at the current price. You now owe the lender X shares but have the proceeds from the sale. If the share price falls you can buy back those shares at the new lower price, return them to the lender and pocket the difference. The risk comes when the share price goes the other way, you now owe the lender the new value of the shares, so have to find some way to cover the difference. This happened a while back when Porsche made a fortune buying shares in Volkswagen from short sellers, and the price unexpectedly rose.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "907deeaa3c67ab33eead5ceaece419ad", "text": "The point of short-selling as a separate instrument is that you can you do it when you can't sell the underlying asset... usually because you don't actually own any of it and in fact believe that it will go down. Shorting allows you to profit from a falling price. Another (non-speculative) possibility is that you don't have the underlying asset right now (and thus can't sell it) but will get it at a certain point in the future, e.g. because it's bonds that you've used to guarantee a loan... or grain that's still growing on your fields.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b5ee4d84968b9181e9d4f40543a3afb6", "text": "\"You can't short a stock unless there is someone willing and able to \"\"lend\"\" shares to you. And there are several reasons why that might not be the case. First, BSFT is a \"\"new\"\" stock, which means that NO ONE has held it very long. It's much easier to short IBM or Exxon Mobil, where there are some long-term holders who would like to earn a little extra money lending you THEIR shares. But if \"\"everyone\"\" involved is busy buying or selling the stock, there won't be many people to lend it. That's not manipulation, that's just the market. Another reason may be a large \"\"short\"\" interest. That is many OTHERS have shorted it before you. That's dangerous for you, because if some lenders want to pull their shares off the market, they can cause a \"\"short squeeze\"\" that will drive the price much higher. And stock shortages can be orchestrated by the company or large investors to artificially drive the price higher. Unless you have a lot of experience, don't try shorting small cap stocks. Try to gain some experience with large caps like IBM or Exxon Mobil first. Those are stocks that people at least can't \"\"play games\"\" with. YOu will win or lose based on the market itself.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1d0a8c9d8471a51c859d2375e59ba45f", "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.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ddfe0fd135b294be3b3199c6a3eced9e", "text": "Your original example is a little confusing because just shorting for 1k and buying for 1k is 100% leveraged or an infinitive leverage ratio. (and not allowed) Brokerage houses would require you to invest some capital in the trade. One example might be requiring you to hold $100 in the brokerage. This is where the 10:1 ratio comes from. (1000/10) Thus a return of 4.5% on the 1000k bond and no movement on the short position would net you $45 and voila a 45% return on your $100 investment. A 40 to 1 leverage ratio would mean that you would only have to invest $25 to make this trade. Something that no individual investor are allowed to do, but for some reason some financial firms have been able to.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a87a785ece5786dd7c3b3761d25d5e96", "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.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "34ca4c64635f2c69fa7b98f5e381c71c", "text": "In the real world, there are only two times you'll see that 5% become worth anything - ie, something you can exchange for cash - 1) if another company buys them; (2) if they go public. If neither of these things happen, you cannot do anything with the stock or stock options that you own.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ef18299621646b2cd361cf1313bf5a04", "text": "&gt; A short position also loses money if the stock just appreciates more slowly than the broader market, which is one way an overvaluation can correct itself. Is there a derivative based on the literal second derivative (acceleration) of the stock price? If so, you'd be able to short those, yes?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b94340d7663d11665594ef07fe307ca5", "text": "The main source is a direct feed from the stock market itself. The faster the feed, the more expensive. 15-minute delay is essentially free... and for those of us who do long-term investment is more than adequate. If you want data sooner, sign up with a brokerage that provides that service as part of what you're paying them for... and remember that every bit you spend on services is that much more profit you have to make just to break even, so there's a real tradeoff.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "c8d5564a970929110c227022086015bc", "text": "Is there any truth to this, or is this another niche scam that's been brewing the last few years? While it may not be an outright scam, such schemes do tend to be on borderline of scams. Technically most of what is being said claimed can be true, however in reality such windfall gains never happen to the investors. Whatever gains are there will be cornered by the growers, trades, other entities in supply chain leaving very little to the investors. It is best to stay away from such investments.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "23cc0532e6c7992d47926f8949ff67da", "text": "\"Any advertisement for a \"\"business opportunity\"\" is nearly always a scam of some kind. In such deals, the seller is the one making the money. They rely on the fantasy of the average person who imagines themself with a profitable business. Real businessmen do not get their businesses from flyers on the sides of telephone poles. Real businessmen already know every aspect and detail of their business already. They do not need to pay some clown $10,000 to \"\"get them started\"\". If you are reading such advertisements, it means you have money, but do not know what to do with it. Although I cannot tell you what to do with your money. I can tell you this: giving it to somebody who advertises a \"\"great business opportunity\"\" would be a mistake.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "ad0a338db3941c0e992d14344f119135", "text": "Based on several of the comments, I can foresee a situation in which an activist investor kicks in a lot of his own money, which, along with funds from kickstarter and possibly some of the investor's buddies, are enough to purchase a major share in a large bank, and by persuading other sympathetic shareholders, they are able to make headway in changing the industry. While improbable, it would at least be plausible.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0764678cf23cceb94ee9743004b917fb", "text": "Not lies. I worked with punkgeek at some of those startups. One we founded together and it was a colossal failure. Two later ones had IPOs in the $700M market-cap range. If you hang around the valley a while (and get lucky) it gets a good bit easier to sniff out the likely successes.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b37b40587e1a7dc7fd5258696352f49a", "text": "ATTENTION ZYNGA INVESTORS I HAVE A UNIQUE BUYING OPPORTUNITY FOR YOU STEM YOUR LOSSES AND INVEST IN TULIP BULBS NOW TULIP BULBS SHOW REMARKABLE RESISTANCE TO MARKET CHANGES AND ONLY INCREASE IN VALUE STUDIES SHOW IT'S BETTER THAN GOLD EMAIL ME AT [email protected] FOR MORE INFO", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cf470bd4321a593788bb0b83d84e07fd", "text": "And it's only as cheap as 1.78% if you stay with them 10 years! They'd love that. You can kind of tell they really want to lock you in for over 4 years. I also think it's daylight robbery, but as a self execution investor I tend to have to talk myself out of that belief by default to be fair. One can wonder too, why are there even 2 fixed (percentage wise) fees? They are desperate not to have one number that is too big sounding, either the advisor fee is a rip off because they have to do all the same analysis regardless, or you could take the view that it's the only valid fee as you're paying for a slice of something, where as the other fee is what? A share of the fixed costs? Well, isn't advising as essential as anything else? I actually think Nutmeg is OK, I've not used them or dealt with them in any way but they are, to a greater or lesser degree, what I've wished for to recommend to friends who don't want to DIY, which is a cheaper next generation online investment facility, and their fees drop significantly over 100K. Going by their claimed past performance and fee structure, whilst I'd like them to be cheaper, I personally think they are not a bad choice in the market.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "691d0314db1073e747e2b2f79ff60975", "text": "I mean, when the federal government can pull your bank charter and the FDIC can revoke your government insurance, it's not worth the benefit just to support some small town pot grower. It's likely to be this way until the federal government legalizes it or gives outright approval to the banks.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "20e5cfc13dc16a19aef4dc3ba03eba08", "text": "\"Let me start by giving you a snippet of a report that will floor you. Beat the market? Investors lag the market by so much that many call the industry a scam. This is the 2015 year end data from a report titled Quantitive Analysis of Investor Behavior by a firm, Dalbar. It boggles the mind that the disparity could be this bad. A mix of stocks and bonds over 30 years should average 8.5% or so. Take out fees, and even 7.5% would be the result I expect. The average investor return was less than half of this. Jack Bogle, founder of Vanguard, and considered the father of the index fund, was ridiculed. A pamphlet I got from Vanguard decades ago quoted fund managers as saying that \"\"indexing is a path to mediocrity.\"\" Fortunately, I was a numbers guy, read all I could that Jack wrote and got most of that 10.35%, less .05, down to .02% over the years. To answer the question: psychology. People are easily scammed as they want to believe they can beat the market. Or that they'll somehow find a fund that does it for them. I'm tempted to say ignorance or some other hint at lack of intelligence, but that would be unfair to the professionals, all of which were scammed by Madoff. Individual funds may not be scams, but investors are partly to blame, buy high, sell low, and you get the results above, I dare say, an investor claiming to use index funds might not fare much better than the 3.66% 30 year return above, if they follow that path, buying high, selling low. Edit - I am adding this line to be clear - My conclusion, if any, is that the huge disparity cannot be attributed to management, a 6.7% lag from the S&P return to what the average investor sees likely comes from bad trading. To the comments by Dave, we have a manager that consistently beats the market over any 2-3 year period. You have been with him 30 years and are clearly smiling about your relationship and investing decision. Yet, he still has flows in and out. People buy at the top when reading how good he is, and selling right after a 30% drop even when he actually beat by dropping just 22%. By getting in and out, he has a set of clients with a 30 year record of 6% returns, while you have just over 11%. This paragraph speaks to the behavior of the investor, not managed vs indexed.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9e62ff0e82fb9b87212b6b1187ca6edc", "text": "Yeah and Doctor Oz has a medical degree. There's a whole lot of skepticism and critique of the outdated and abandoned methods he's using. A quick google search will say from plenty of other experts from MIT and other name dropping schools that his data isn't and cannot be realistic. I'm anticipating a market correction, but I'm also not a conspiracy theorist.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "da9bcd80c4b84b951d5e8c1372a1ed05", "text": "\"This article is written by an idiot!! Risk ≠ failure, risk = possibility of failure Reward (return) should be commensurate with risk and this is why long-shot propositions should be worthwhile. An example of this could be something like the following; an investment with a 95% chance of success should return about 5% on the investment (1 in 20 risk of loss, 1/20th return on investment for taking the risk) while a long-shot investment with a 5% chance of success should be paying a 2000% return (1 in 20 will succeed but they will pay 20 times the investment if they do). An investment with a 0% chance of return (that you are suckered into due to \"\"opacity\"\") is not an investment, it is being robbed and it should be illegal. WTF is opacity? Lying?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d7d4ec3f4b46b3085ba58507580e1240", "text": "If I needed a safe-ish way to bank a lot of cash in vegas I'd exchange for high value chips at the local gambling establishments. I have to imagine that's being done already for other less than legal enterprises.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "316af7d65c5164b94b5fef54cf9f68b3", "text": "This sort of question pops up with every new or sexy technology, and it's born (IMO) from the misguided opinion that a growth industry is a source of huge, guaranteed profit. The reality is that, even in rapidly growing tech sectors, there is a high infant mortality rate. A lot of balloons go up, many pop, some drift far off course, some get tangled in the branches... and a few rise to the heavens, making the early investors look like supergeniuses. Some very few of them were! They did their research, they made calculated risk assessments, and they chose AAPL over competitive companies. Some bought AAPL near the IPO through luck. If your investment strategy idealizes these guys, go to Las Vegas and bet on red. Red never fails. Plus: you'll get free drinks, a buffet, and a nice stage show while you go bankrupt. But in general, companies within a new, rising sector like marijuana dispensaries/farms/whatever aren't guaranteed growth. Do your research, and diversify your investments!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5b683b5c56dadebd966fea31964fadf1", "text": "\"One alternative to bogleheadism is the permanent portfolio concept (do NOT buy the mutual fund behind this idea as you can easily obtain access to a low cost money market fund, stock index fund, and bond fund and significantly reduce the overall cost). It doesn't have the huge booms that stock plans do, but it also doesn't have the crushing blows either. One thing some advisers mention is success is more about what you can stick to than what \"\"traditionally\"\" makes sense, as you may not be able to stick to what traditionally makes sense (all people differ). This is an excellent pro and con critique of the permanent portfolio (read the whole thing) that does highlight some of the concerns with it, especially the big one: how well will it do in a world of high interest rates? Assuming we ever see a world of high interest rates, it may not provide a great return. The authors make the assumption that interest rates will be rising in the future, thus the permanent portfolio is riskier than a traditional 60/40. As we're seeing in Europe, I think we're headed for a world of negative interest rates - something in the past most advisers have thought was very unlikely. I don't know if we'll see interest rates above 6% in my lifetime and if I live as long as my father, that's a good 60+ years ahead. (I realize people will think this is crazy to write, but consider that people are willing to pay governments money to hold their cash - that's how crazy our world is and I don't see this changing.)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "767e1e7ca8737a99e900851632cb7ea1", "text": "You are right. It's not actually a scam but people call it that way because MLM promoters lie and use misleading statistics and demonstrations to make it look easy despite having pretty much no chance of success. Also MLM promoters usually lie to people about owning a supercar or mansion, and telling them that they can be rich by joining MLM. But yes it's a gamble disguised as a decent business.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1d1f6ae371e9282d960575c5b9122889", "text": "\"I mean, in the eyes of investors it is a good investment. &gt; \"\"Demand for stock from fund managers exceeded supply by more than 29 times at that price, two people said.\"\" They also have plantations in Malaysia and Indonesia, along with refining plants in China, Indonesia, Turkey, and South Africa. So it already has a stable foot hold in various economies. Like I said, it's nice to see a business IPO that offers a tangible product with a relatively cheap IPO along with a chance to see much growth. You don't see many of these around nowadays.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "80ff743892623ae50d1e5ca836fc4400", "text": "\"She claimed that she makes money. When you wanted to make some too, she asked for your account credentials - which are only needed to take money away, never to give. The simplest explanation would be loan scam: Even if you have only $10 on your account, you can lose much more - the trick is that someone using your credentials can take an online loan in your name, and steal that money. If the scheme is long-running, she'll be taking new loans and using the money to pay back the earlier ones, building up credit history for her victims - only to allow taking even bigger loans. Her victims see the incoming transfers and are happy about the scheme \"\"working\"\". Until she decides that the pot is big enough to cash it in and disappear, leaving everyone deep in debt. Those who fell for this could be already defaulting loans they have no idea about and the loan companies have no way of notifying them, because she redirected the contact details. Never reveal your password. Nobody needs your password for any legitimate purpose.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "97f41387c3e0e3a356c3818c5c8d2845", "text": "\"No. I glanced through the article you linked to. It's quite lengthy, but not compelling. I'd not lose any sleep over this. Others with far better credentials are making the opposite claim, that life is good and the Dow on its way to 20,000. Back to this guy - StansberryResearch.com Reviews – Legit or Scam? offers a look at this company. Stansberry calls his company \"\"one of the largest and most recognized investment research companies in the world\"\" but references to his firm call it a clearinghouse for other authors newsletters. Why would you give any more credence to his ranting than any other extreme prognostications? I suppose if I told you I never heard of him it would be pretty meaningless. I certainly haven't heard of every financial writer. But if he's one of the most recognized, you'd think I might have. Note, I've edited since seeing I was downvoted. But to the question author, you might want to summarize your questions in the future instead of linking to a video or 13,000 word rant. (when you click to shut the video, the text is available.)\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "c6f80f2cd50f3b106f8575fffc775665", "text": "If you buy US stocks when the CAD is high and sell them when the CAD is lower you will make a currency gain on top of any profit or loss from the stock investments. If you buy US stocks when the CAD is low and sell when the CAD is higher any profits from gains from the stock investment will be reduced and any losses will be increased. If you are just starting out you may be better off investing in your own country to avoid any currency risk adding to your stock market risk.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "07e19c760a476464c617d8cdf8002f85", "text": "At the time of writing, the Canadian dollar is worth roughly $0.75 U.S. Now, it's not possible for you to accurately predict what it'll be worth in, say, ten years. Maybe it'll be worth $0.50 U.S. Maybe $0.67. Maybe $1.00. Additionally, you can't know in advance if the Canadian economy will grow faster than the U.S., or slower, or by how much. Let's say you don't want to make a prediction. You just want to invest 50% of your money in Canadian stocks, 50% in U.S. Great. Do that, and don't worry about the current interest rates. Let's say that you do want to make a prediction. You are firmly of the belief that the Canadian dollar will be worth $1.00 U.S. dollar in approximately ten years. And furthermore, the Canadian economy and the U.S. economy will grow at roughly equal rates, in their local currencies. Great. You should put more of your money in Canadian stocks. Let's say that you want to make a prediction. The Canadian economy is tanking. It's going to be worth $0.67 or less in ten years. And on top of that, the U.S. economy is primed for growth. It's going to grow far faster than the Canadian economy. In that case, you want to invest mostly in U.S. stocks. Let's get more complicated. You think the Canadian dollar is going to recover, but boy, maple syrup futures are in trouble. The next decade is all about Micky Mouse. Now what should you do? Well, it depends on how fast the U.S. economy expands, compared to the currency difference. What should you do? I can't tell you that because I can't predict the future. What did I do? I bought 25% Canadian stocks, 25% U.S. stocks, 25% world stocks, and 25% Canadian bonds (roughly), back when the Canadian dollar was stronger. What am I doing now? Same thing. I don't know enough about the respective economies to judge. If I had a firm opinion, though, I'd certainly be happy to change my percentages a little. Not a lot, but a little.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e6a3340c925cebe9771d4f0abb64fb8b", "text": "When you want to invest in an asset denominated by a foreign currency, your investment is going to have some currency risk to it. You need to worry not just about what happens to your own currency, but also the foreign currency. Lets say you want to invest $10000 in US Stocks as a Canadian. Today that will cost you $13252, since USDCAD just hit 1.3252. You now have two ways you can make money. One is if USDCAD goes up, two is if the stocks go up. The former may not be obvious, but remember, you are holding US denominated assets currently, with the intention of one day converting those assets back into CAD. Essentially, you are long USDCAD (long USD short CAD). Since you are short CAD, if CAD goes up it hurts you It may seem odd to think about this as a currency trade, but it opens up a possibility. If you want a foreign investment to be currency neutral, you just make the opposite currency trade, in addition to your original investment. So in this case, you would buy $10,000 in US stocks, and then short USDCAD (ie long CAD, short USD $10,000). This is kind of savvy and may not be something you would do. But its worth mentioning. And there are also some currency hedged ETFs out there that do this for you http://www.ishares.com/us/strategies/hedge-currency-impact However most are hedged relative to USD, and are meant to hedge the target countries currency, not your own.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "fe938688353d8877de8a9b0627e67415", "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.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1b56332284074941947f1f4196a9f43a", "text": "\"I don't know Canada very well, but can offer some general points when considering where to park your emergency fund. Savings rates are currently low, but then so is inflation. Always bear in mind that inflation decreases the value of your money, so if you're getting 4% interest and inflation is 2%, you're making 2% gross in real terms. If you're getting 2% and inflation is close to zero, you're actually earning a similar amount, it's just the numbers are going up more slowly. Obviously when and how much tax you pay affects the actual return, it's just worth bearing in mind that low interest and low inflation are actually not that bad a savings environment as they first appear. For an emergency fund the key thing is ease of access, consider keeping some portion of your savings in an instant access account for those emergencies that happen when the banks are closed. In the UK there are various tax-free savings options, I'm guessing Canada has a few too, if so you should explore those options. While these may not have attractive headline rates, you don't pay tax on the interest, this can make them much more competitive (4% tax free is the same as 5% gross if you would have to pay tax at 20%). Normally tax free investments have caps so once you've invested a set amount you can't add anymore. This may be a consideration if you regularly dip into your emergency fund as you might not easily be able to build it up again. My approach is to have about 90% of my \"\"rainy day\"\" fund in easily accessible but tax free savings. This discourages me from spending it unless I really need to. I then keep a slush fund sufficient to cover every day disasters (boiler packing up, needing a hire car for a week etc) in instant access accounts .\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8a02739d91754ad5c91f0b4ccfd3b8bb", "text": "I think the points that Edward Conard was making was that the higher the rate investors are taxed, the fewer investors are willing to take the risk. I think the point he should have brought up is that investors and innovators are completely separate. look at facebook, zuckerberg would probably innovate for the sake of innovating, but the people that put money with him would be more wary of the cost/benefit portion. while 2% may not be a big deal to zuckerberg, it might be to his investors.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "99c560ff8a865296a2908cbc18ed8b0a", "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.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "62339a39aa3dddc11a5e804af61e19a0", "text": "\"Another factor to consider, beyond the fact that growth and volatility go together, is that the times when many people will need to liquidate their investments will correlate with the times that many other people need to liquidate their investments, and such correlation will push down the immediate value of those investments. While certificates of deposit have penalties for early withdrawal, one can establish up front what the worst-case penalty would be for cashing it in at the most inopportune time. By contrast, stocks offer no such assurance. Stocks sometimes have weird downward spikes that may be short-lived, but if life circumstances force one to liquidate stocks during such a downward spike the \"\"penalty\"\" can be much larger than on a CD.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3f8d64a7173e83e85807bda067af93aa", "text": "If S&P crashes, these currencies will appreciate. Note that the above is speculation, not fact. There is definitely no guarantee that, say, the CHF/CAD currency pair is inversely linked to the performance of the US stock market when measured in USD, let alone to the performance of the US stock market as measured in CAD. How can a Canadian get exposure to a safe haven currency like CHF and JPY? I don't want a U.S. dollar denominated ETF. Three simple options come to mind, if you still want to pursue that: Have money in your bank account. Go to your bank, tell them that you want to buy some Swiss francs or Japanese yen. Walk out with a physical wad of cash. Put said wad of cash somewhere safe until needed. It is possible that the bank will tell you to come back later as they might not have the physical cash available at the branch office, but this isn't anything really unusual; it is often highly recommended for people who travel abroad to have some local cash on hand. Contact your bank and tell them that you want to open an account denominated in the foreign currency of your choice. They might ask some questions about why, there might be additional fees associated with it, and you'll probably have to pay an exchange fee when transferring money between it and your local-currency-denominated accounts, but lots of banks offer this service as a service for those of their customers that have lots of foreign currency transactions. If yours doesn't, then shop around. Shop around for money market funds that focus heavily or exclusively on the currency area you are interested in. Look for funds that have a native currency value appreciation as close as possible to 0%. Any value change that you see will then be tied directly to the exchange rate development of the relevant currency pair (for example, CHF/CAD). #1 and #3 are accessible to virtually anyone, no large sums of money needed (in principle). Fees involved in #2 may or may not make it a practical option for someone handling small amounts of money, but I can see no reason why it shouldn't be a possibility again in principle.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d74301c7507073d54fb71f94b4126d2d", "text": "General advice for novice investors is to have the majority of your holdings be denominated in your home currency as this reduces volatility which can make people squeamish and, related to your second question, prevents all sorts of confusion. A rising CAD actually decreases the value (for you) of your current USD stock. After all, the same amount of USD now buys you less in CAD. An exception to the rule can be made if you would use USD often in your daily life yet your income is CAD. In this case owning stock denominated in USD can form a natural hedge in your life (USD goes up -> your relative income goes down but stock value goes up and visa versa). Keep in mind —as mentioned in the comments— that an US company with a listing in CAD is still going to be affected by price swings of USD.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6470741c89540d9d5adea1af37740f9b", "text": "\"I don't follow the numbers in your example, but the fundamental question you're asking is, \"\"If I can borrow money for a low cost, and if I think I can invest it and receive returns greater than that cost, should I do it?\"\" It doesn't matter where that money comes from, a mortgage that's bigger than it needs to be, a credit card teaser rate, or a margin line from your stock broker. The answer is \"\"maybe\"\" - depending on the certainty you have about the returns you'd receive on your investments and your tolerance for risk. Only you can answer that question for yourself. If you make less than your mortgage rates on the investments, you'll wish you hadn't! As an aside, I don't know anything about Belgian tax law, but in US tax law, your deductions can be limited to the actual value of the home. Your law may be similar and thus increase the effective mortgage interest rate.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ce98800ddfa4c44fe836bcef62c53ab0", "text": "\"The primary tax-sheltered investing vehicles in Canada include: The RRSP. You can contribute up to 18% of your prior year's earned income, up to a limit ($24,930 in 2015, plus past unused contribution allowance) and receive an income tax deduction for your contributions. In an RRSP, investments grow on a tax-deferred basis. No tax is due until you begin withdrawals. When you withdraw funds, the withdrawn amount will be taxed at marginal income tax rates in effect at that time. The RRSP is similar to the U.S. \"\"traditional\"\" IRA, being an individual account with pre-tax contributions, tax-deferred growth, and ordinary tax rates applied to withdrawals. Yet, RRSPs have contribution limits higher than IRAs; higher, even, than U.S. 401(k) employee contribution limits. But, the RRSP is dissimilar to the IRA and 401(k) since an individual's annual contribution allowance isn't use-it-or-lose-it—unused allowance accumulates. The TFSA. Once you turn 18, you can put in up to $5,500 each year, irrespective of earned income. Like the RRSP, contribution room accumulates. If you were 18 in 2009 (when TFSAs were introduced) you'd be able to contribute $36,500 if you'd never contributed to one before. Unlike the RRSP, contributions to a TFSA are made on an after-tax basis and you pay no tax when you withdraw money. The post-tax nature of the TFSA and completely tax-free withdrawals makes them comparable to Roth-type accounts in the U.S.; i.e. while you won't get a tax deduction for contributing, you won't pay tax on earnings when withdrawn. Yet, unlike U.S. Roth-type accounts, you are not required to use the TFSA strictly for retirement savings—there is no penalty for pre-retirement withdrawal of TFSA funds. There are also employer-sponsored defined benefit (DB) and defined contribution (DC) retirement pension plans. Generally, employees who participate in these kinds of plans have their annual RRSP contribution limits reduced. I won't comment on these kinds of plans other than to say they exist and if your employer has one, check it out—many employees lose out on free money by not participating. The under-appreciated RESP. Typically used for education savings. A lifetime $50,000 contribution limit per beneficiary, and you can put that all in at once if you're not concerned about maximizing grants (see below). No tax deduction for contributions, but investments grow on a tax-deferred basis. Original contributions can be withdrawn tax-free. Qualified educational withdrawals of earnings are taxed as regular income in the hands of the beneficiary. An RESP beneficiary is typically a child, and in a child's case the Canadian federal government provides matching grant money (called CESG) of 20% on the first $2500 contributed each year, up to age 18, to a lifetime maximum of $7200 per beneficiary. Grant money is subject to additional conditions for withdrawal. While RESPs are typically used to save for a child's future education, there's nothing stopping an adult from opening an RESP for himself. If you've never had one, you can deposit $50,000 of after-tax money to grow on a tax-deferred basis for up to 36 years ... as far as I understand. An adult RESP will not qualify for CESG. Moreover, if you use the RESP strictly as a tax shelter and don't make qualified educational withdrawals when the time comes, your original contributions still come out free of tax but you'll pay ordinary income tax plus 20% additional tax on the earnings portion. That's the \"\"catch\"\"*. *However, if at that time you have accumulated sufficient RRSP contribution room, you may move up to $50,000 of your RESP earnings into your RRSP without any tax consequences (i.e. also avoiding the 20% additional tax) at time of transfer. Perhaps there's something above you haven't considered. Still, be sure to do your own due diligence and to consult a qualified, experienced, and conflict-free financial advisor for advice particular to your own situation.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "229d3ecda58289b259fc5368abefe568", "text": "In Canada, it is similarly taxed as CQM states. Mining is considered business income and you need to file a T1 form. Capital appreciation is no different than treating gains from stock.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1a404654ead22b2255f0566d521035db", "text": "\"@sdg's answer is spot-on with the advice to avoid repeated conversions, but I'd like to provide some specifics on the fees involved: Each time you round-trip Canadian dollars (CAD) through a U.S.-dollar (USD) priced security at TD Waterhouse and leave your proceeds in CAD, you're paying a total foreign exchange fee – implied in their rate spread – of about 3%, give or take. That's ~3% per buy & sell combination, or ~1.5% on each end. You can imagine if you trade back & forth frequently, you can quickly lose a lot of money. Do it back and forth ten times in a year and you're out ~30% on the fees alone! The TD U.S. Money Market Fund (TDB166) that TD Waterhouse is referring to has no direct commission to buy or sell, but it does have a Management Expense Ratio (MER) of 0.20% per year – basically a fee which is deducted from the fund's returns (which, today, are also close to zero.) Practically speaking, that's a very slim fee to hold some USD in your Canadian dollar TFSA. While 0.20% is cheap, a point to keep in mind is if you maintain a significant USD balance, you are maintaining currency risk: You can lose money in CAD terms if the CAD appreciates vs. USD. Additional references: Canadian Capitalist describes TD Waterhouse and the use of TDB166 and \"\"wash trades\"\" at How to \"\"Wash\"\" Your Trade? He's referring to RRSPs, but the same applies to TFSAs, which came out after the post was written. Canadian Couch Potato has two relevant articles: Are US-listed ETFs Really Cheaper? and Lowering Your Currency Exchange Fees.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "993793d6dcee694fa8034a12ea35d61e", "text": "Can you isolate the market impact to just the Fed's quantitative easing? Can you rule out the future economic predictions of low growth and that there are reasons why the Fed has kept rates low and is trying its best to stimulate the economy? Just something to consider here. The key is to understand what is the greater picture here as well as the question of which stock market index are you looking at that has done so badly. Some stocks may be down and others may be up so it isn't necessarily bad for all equally.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "162c3be73cdea6ccf43e6834a2533223", "text": "There is a tax treaty between Canada and the US that recognizes RRSPs as retirement accounts. You won't be taxed on the gains in your RRSP like you would be if it was in a TFSA. So you don't really have to do anything (except fill out a form for the IRS every year). The problem that usually arises is if you want to buy something else. I don't know of any Canadian brokerage that will sell products to a US resident. It's a question of where they're licensed. However the SEC has issued an exemption so you can try to argue with your broker to get a trade done. Link to SEC order With such a small amount in the account you may be paying fees or have it invested in funds with higher fees. You will have to do the math on whether or not you should just withdraw the money and invest in cheaper funds and accounts in the US. When you withdraw the money Canada will withhold a flat rate of 25% or in some circumstances 15%. For more info go to Serbinski (a cross border tax specialist).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "29f1a0668a3ff47e25354278cfa0aed8", "text": "No. There is no indication that the recent decline will have an impact on the house market in the UK. The reason(s) for the downward move these last few weeks are mainly due to: The last two points caused the Chinese government to decide to devaluate the Yuan. This in turn triggered an unforeseen panic attack among investors and speculators around the globe starting with the Chinese that are trading on borrowed money (not only on margin but also by using loans). The UK house prices are not influenced by the above factors, not even indirectly. The most important factors for house prices are in general: If you keep the above points in mind you should be able to decide whether now is the right time to buy a house in your area. Given that a lot of central banks (incl. BoE) are maintaining a low interest rate policy (except fed soon), now is a good time to take a mortgage. Sources used: I know interest rates are determined by the BoE which looks at the global picture to determine these rates but the main directive of a central bank is to maintain an inflation close to but not exactly 2 % as to spur on economic growth. As such, the value of a company as valuated on the stock market is not or barely taken into account. The negligible impact is the reason why I stated that the crash in the summer of 2015 doesn't even have an indirect impact. Also such a crash is very short lived. It's more the underlying reason for the fears that could cause issues if they drag on.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a5395c1a16754bfaee969990f4e83e29", "text": "Excise tax on the excess contribution is 6% a year on the amount of the contribution. In addition, gains will be taxable to you. By adding 20K over the limit, you added $1200 to your tax bill. Withdraw it ASAP. Whatever investment you have in your IRA - you can probably buy it (or a comparable) outside of the IRA.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "72c48b31b6fa47b1f89fb4a960648aff", "text": "For accounting purposes, consider the costs of acquisition as part of the cost of the asset as opposed to expensing. This will be important to consider if you need to amortise the asset for reporting or tax purposes. Dr. Land $250,000 Dr. Building: $250,000 Cr. Cash $500,000 The acquisition of the land from previous owners. And Dr. Land $12,500 Dr. Building $12,500 Cr. Cash $25,000 Fees paid to auctioneer who helped acquire the land. The basis for dividing the cost should be done at appraised prices. These appraised prices will appear in the first entry and should help you along.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "49f29b55b33e9105340e11bfb78539e9", "text": "You also may want to consider how this interacts with the stepped up basis of estates. If you never sell the stock and it passes to your heirs with your estate, under current tax law the basis will increase from the purchase price to the market price at the time of transfer. In a comment, you proposed: Thinking more deeply though, I am a little skeptical that it's a free lunch: Say I buy stock A (a computer manufacturer) at $100 which I intend to hold long term. It ends up falling to $80 and the robo-advisor sells it for tax loss harvesting, buying stock B (a similar computer manufacturer) as a replacement. So I benefit from realizing those losses. HOWEVER, say both stocks then rise by 50% over 3 years. At this point, selling B gives me more capital gains tax than if I had held A through the losses, since A's rise from 80 back to 100 would have been free for me since I purchased at 100. And then later thought Although thinking even more (sorry, thinking out loud here), I guess I still come out ahead on taxes since I was able to deduct the $20 loss on A against ordinary income, and while I pay extra capital gains on B, that's a lower tax rate. So the free lunch is $20*[number of shares]*([my tax bracket] - [capital gains rates]) That's true. And in addition to that, if you never sell B, which continues to rise to $200 (was last at $120 after a 50% increase from $80), the basis steps up to $200 on transfer to your heirs. Of course, your estate may have to pay a 40% tax on the $200 before transferring the shares to your heirs. So this isn't exactly a free lunch either. But you have to pay that 40% tax regardless of the form in which the money is held. Cash, real estate, stocks, whatever. Whether you have a large or small capital gain on the stock is irrelevant to the estate tax. This type of planning may not matter to you personally, but it is another aspect of what wealth management can impact.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c7c01e532e699f91dbf3b441b7b6a50c", "text": "It may clarify your thinking if you look at this as two transactions: I am an Australian so I cannot comment on US tax laws but this is how the Australian Tax Office would view the transaction. By thinking this way you can allocate the risks correctly, Partnership Tenancy Two things should be clear - you will need a good accountant and a good lawyer. I do not agree that there is a conflict of interest in the lawyer acting for both parties - his role should only be for advice and to document what the two of you agree to. If you end up in dispute, then you need two lawyers.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "998c6bb64e219b1c2a9fa3c93102ef7f", "text": "If you were a business, all your assets would have a dollar value, so when you sold them you'd decrease the amount of assets by that amount and increase in cash, and if there was a profit on the sale it would go in as income, if there was loss it would count as a cost (or a loss)... so if there was a profit it would increase Equity, a loss then it would decrease Equity. Since it's not really worthwhile doing a estimated cost for everything that you have, I'd just report it as income like you are doing and let the amount of equity increase proportionately. So, implicitly you always had roughly that amount of equity, but some of it was in the form of assets, and now you're liquidating those assets so the amount shows up in GnuCash. When you buy new things you might sell later, you could consider adding them as assets to keep track of this explicitly (but even then you have problems-- the price of things changes with time and you might not want to keep up with those price changes, it's a lot of extra work for a family budget) -- for stuff you already have it's better to treat things as you are doing and just treat the money as income-- it's easier and doesn't really change anything-- you always had that in equity, some of it was just off the books and now you are bringing it into the books.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "57d42b1bd6ae8d4e07c2ce05b6e3b1f1", "text": "One thing to keep in mind is that with Roth accounts, there are different withdrawal considerations based on your contributions. For example, you can withdraw Roth IRA contributions whenever you want in the future. However this really has nothing to do with your cost basis and purely to do with the contribution amount vs balance.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "98b07a3bada1706a14716f012eaff827", "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.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "980e48c749e05c0432b46adffc11cd8a", "text": "Imagine a poorly run store in the middle of downtown Manhattan. It has been in the family for a 100 years but the current generation is incompetent regarding running a business. The store is worthless because it is losing money, but the land it is sitting on is worth millions. So yes an asset of the company can be worth more than the entire company. What one would pay for the rights to the land, vs the entire company are not equal.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1a01e7ec0410e2e2eefa633c0b1db4cc", "text": "Assuming no debt, as you've specified in the comments to your question, the assets should generally be distributed proportional to ownership share. BUT, without any sort of agreement, there might be contention on what each investor's share is and that might get fought out in court. With a corporation issuing shares, the corporate charter probably defines the relationship between different classes of shares (or specifies only one class). For a partnership though, you could conceivable have people making claims of ownership stake based on labor in addition to any cash that they put up. Messy if there's no up-front agreement.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "301088bb910fa653719b6b302d15f778", "text": "\"In this context, we're talking about terms of art in accounting, specifically double-entry book-keeping. In accounting lingo, an \"\"asset\"\" account represents an actual asset and it's value. So if you buy a car with a loan for $10,000, you apply a $10,000 debit to the asset account and a $10,000 credit to the loan. Debits and credits are confusing when you first start learning about accounting.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f469aad776f005ed531a025b282f05ad", "text": "This is great! I'm not a CPA, but work in finance. As such, my course/professional work is focused more on the economic and profitability aspects of transfer pricing. As you might imagine, it tended to analyze corporate strategy decisions under various cost allocation models, which you thoroughly discuss. I would agree with the statement that it is based on the matching principle but would like to add that transfer pricing is interesting as it falls under several fields: accounting, finance, and economics. Fundamentally it is based on the matching principal, but it's real world applications are based on all three (it's often used to determine divisional and even individual sales peoples profitability; as is the case with bank related funds transfer pricing on stuff like time deposits). In this case, the correct accounting principal allows you to, when done properly, better understand the economics, strategy, and operations of an organization. In effect, when done correctly, it provides transparency for strategic decision making to executives. As I said, since my coursework tended to focus more on that aspect, I definitely have a natural tendency towards it. This is an amazing explanation (esp. about interest on M&amp;A bridge loans, I get that) of the more detailed stuff! Truthfully, I'm not as familiar with it and was just trying to show more of the conceptual than nitty-gritty. Thanks for the reply!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "76e2f1493af491c6de3ccbfff6b5a825", "text": "What you're looking for is the 'Transaction Report'. When you're looking at the report (it comes up empty), open the options and click on the first tab 'Accounts'. Here you can highlight multiple source accounts in the top pane, and filter by the Expense accounts that you are interested in the bottom pane. Here's an example that goes over the process (there are many examples online, I just included the first one that came up in a search).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "69c90279a1829fd8ce58e09cb7fd2a79", "text": "No. If you didn't specify LIFO on account or sell by specifying the shares you wish sold, then the brokers method applies. From Publication 551 Identifying stock or bonds sold. If you can adequately identify the shares of stock or the bonds you sold, their basis is the cost or other basis of the particular shares of stock or bonds. If you buy and sell securities at various times in varying quantities and you cannot adequately identify the shares you sell, the basis of the securities you sell is the basis of the securities you acquired first. For more information about identifying securities you sell, see Stocks and Bonds under Basis of Investment Property in chapter 4 of Pub. 550. The trick is to identify the stock lot prior to sale.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1679ed0311b0aed45606aa58c7616453", "text": "You can get really nerdy with the EV calc, but I would just add that it's important to deduct any non-operating, non-consolidated assets in addition to the minority interest adjustment - e.g. unconsolidated subsidiaries, excess real estate, excess working capital, etc.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c89af4372c5a95e112336d2e3e9f3f8a", "text": "\"This is an example from another field, real estate. Suppose you buy a $100,000 house with a 20 percent down payment, or $20,000, and borrow the other $80,000. In this example, your \"\"equity\"\" or \"\"market cap\"\" is $20,000. But the total value, or \"\"enterprise value\"\" of the house, is actually $100,000, counting the $80,000 mortgage. \"\"Enterprise value\"\" is what a buyer would have to pay to own the company or the house \"\"free and clear,\"\" counting the debt.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dcfb68ac04560cc5455ac9725a74c2d2", "text": "You could think of points 1 and 3 combined to be similar to buying shares and selling calls on a part of those shares. $50k is the net of the shares and calls sale (ie without point 3, the investor would pay more for the same stake). Look up convertible debt, and why it's used. It's basically used so that both parties get 'the best of both world's' from equity and debt financing. Who is he selling his share to in point 2 back to the business or to outside investors?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "00df1661bbb7f46e4761ef8d1b612ca9", "text": "I don't understand the logic of converting a cost of funds of 4% to a monthly % and then subtracting that number from an annual one (the 1.5%). Unfortunately without seeing the case I really can't help you...there was likely much you have left out from above.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "d47d1d96b13fb1d436e6802cf96bb61c", "text": "Each country would have to go back to its own currency, or the rich countries would just kick the poor ones out of the EU. It would be bad for the poor countries, and the global economy would suffer, but it really wouldn't be a big deal.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "aab8bfc32c55710d1b90338183b1a0fc", "text": "These rumors are here just to help dollar stay alive. Euro have problems, but they are rather solvable, unlike dollar situation. Even if something wrong would happen - countries would return to their national currencies, mainly Germany & France are important here. This does not means that EuroUnion would be destroyed - some countries live in EU without Euro and they are just fine.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6e3ceaab19aa92b952daca64edf09669", "text": "If the Euro went bust then it would be the 12th government currency to go belly up in Europe (according to this website). Europe holds the record for most failed currencies. It also holds the record for the worst hyperinflation in history - Yugoslavia 1993. I'm not sure what would happen if the Euro failed. It depends on how it fails. If it fails quickly (which most do) then there will be bank runs, bank holidays, capital controls, massive price increases, price controls, and just general confusion as people race to get rid of their Euros. Black markets for everything will pop up if the price controls remain in place. Some countries may switch to a foreign currency (i.e. the US dollar if it is still around) until they can get their own currency in circulation.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "332c7311f705acec1dd28a25e372bdce", "text": "I'd have anything you would need for maybe 3-6 months stored up: food, fuel, toiletries, other incidentals. What might replace the currency after the Euro collapses will be the least of your concerns when it does collapse.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9068374da97395610198f6d0ad280764", "text": "Krugman (Nobel prize in Economy) has just said: Greek euro exit, very possibly next month. Huge withdrawals from Spanish and Italian banks, as depositors try to move their money to Germany. 3a. Maybe, just possibly, de facto controls, with banks forbidden to transfer deposits out of country and limits on cash withdrawals. 3b. Alternatively, or maybe in tandem, huge draws on ECB credit to keep the banks from collapsing. 4a. Germany has a choice. Accept huge indirect public claims on Italy and Spain, plus a drastic revision of strategy — basically, to give Spain in particular any hope you need both guarantees on its debt to hold borrowing costs down and a higher eurozone inflation target to make relative price adjustment possible; or: 4b. End of the euro. And we’re talking about months, not years, for this to play out. http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/13/eurodammerung-2/", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8ff08107bbfa13cbfeed8f5187580bce", "text": "\"The result would be catastrophic. The almost-reserve currency would collapse which would produce a medium sized depression, perhaps same with with 2008-now, or even larger, since don't forget, that one was produced from a housing bubble existing in only a part of the american economy; imagine what would happen if almost the full size of the economy (Europe) would collapse, even if Europe isn't as much \"\"connected\"\". But reality here is, there's no chance to that. The real reason you hear those rumors is that America (along with minor partners like the British Sterling) want to bring down the Euro for medium-term benefit. e.g. Several economists get on Bloomberg announcing they are short selling the Euro. Irony is, all this is helping the Euro since selling and short-selling and selling and short-selling helps massively its liquidity. It's like several nay sayers actually making a politician famous with their spite.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "23dcb346982a8bdcf2ec460e8c272c4c", "text": "There are many different things that can happen, all or some. Taking Russia and Argentina as precedence - you may not be able to withdraw funds from your bank for some period of time. Not because your accounts will be drained, but because the cash supply will be restricted. Similar thing has also happened recently in Cyprus. However, the fact that the governments of Russia and Argentina limited the use of cash for a period of time doesn't mean that the US government will have to do the same, it my choose some other means of restraint. What's for sure is that nothing good will happen. Nothing will probably happen to your balance in the bank (Although Cyprus has shown that that is not a given either). But I'm not so sure about FDIC maintaining it's insurance if the bank fails (meaning if the bank defaults as a result of the chain effect - you may lose your money). If the government is defaulting, it might not have enough cash to take over the bank deposits. After the default the currency value will probably drop sharply (devaluation) which will lead to inflation. Meaning your same balance will be worth much less than it is now. So there's something to worry about for everyone.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "53a33eed609d2c59d67a43cc281aea4f", "text": "There are various indexes on the stock market that track the currencies. Though it is different than Forex (probably less leverage), you may be able to get the effects you're looking for. I don't have a lot of knowledge in this area, but looked some into FXE, to trade the Euro debt crisis. Here's an article on Forex, putting FXE down (obviously a biased view, but perhaps will give you a starting point for comparison, should you want to trade something specific, like the current euro/dollar situation).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7e087c06ec9a617707d80075a5f8175b", "text": "It depends on what actions the European Central Bank (ECB) takes. If it prints Euros to bail out the country then your Euros will decline in value. Same thing with a US state going bankrupt. If the FED prints dollars to bailout a state it will set a precedent that other states can spend carelessly and the FED will be there to bail them out by printing money. If you own bonds issued by the bankrupting state then you could lose some of your money if the country is not bailed out.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6cc7e456751c9ae6e555519de100de88", "text": "In many countries in Europe the prices shot through the roof, so it is not all positive. Also the switching country gives out lot of monetary control that is not welcomed by many. I think that UK is not going to change to euro for a long long time.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "776a0fad3abfce8445dedec1de473ff6", "text": "Short the Pound and other English financial items. Because the English economy is tied to the EU, it will be hit as well. You might prefer this over Euro denominated investments, since it's not exactly clear who your counterpart is if the Euro really crashes hard. Meaning suppose you have a short position Euro's versus dollars, but the clearing house is taken down by the crash.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cef4fa3efefe86f85f703ff4e020704f", "text": "\"If there is a very sudden and large collapse in the exchange rate then because algorithmic trades will operate very fast it is possible to determine “x” immediately after the change in exchange rate. All you need to know is the order book. You also need to assume that the algorithmic bot operates faster than all other market participants so that the order book doesn’t change except for those trades executed by the bot. The temporarily cheaper price in the weakened currency market will rise and the temporarily dearer price in the strengthened currency market will fall until the prices are related by the new exchange rate. This price is determined by the condition that the total volume of buys in the cheaper market is equal to the total volume of sells in the dearer market. Suppose initially gold is worth $1200 on NYSE or £720 on LSE. Then suppose the exchange rate falls from r=0.6 £/$ to s=0.4 £/$. To illustrate the answer lets assume that before the currency collapse the order book for gold on the LSE and NYSE looks like: GOLD-NYSE Sell (100 @ $1310) Sell (100 @ $1300) <——— Sell (100 @ $1280) Sell (200 @ $1260) Sell (300 @ $1220) Sell (100 @ $1200) ————————— buy (100 @ $1190) buy (100 @ $1180) GOLD-LSE Sell (100 @ £750) Sell (100 @ £740) ————————— buy (200 @ £720) buy (200 @ £700) buy (100 @ £600) buy (100 @ £550) buy (100 @ £530) buy (100 @ £520) <——— buy (100 @ £500) From this hypothetical example, the automatic traders will buy up the NYSE gold and sell the LSE gold in equal volume until the price ratio \"\"s\"\" is attained. By summing up the sell volumes on the NYSE and the buy volumes on the LSE, we see that the conditions are met when the price is $1300 and £520. Note 800 units were bought and sold. So “x” depends on the available orders in the order book. Immediately after this, however, the price of the asset will be subject to the new changes of preference by the market participants. However, the price calculated above must be the initial price, since otherwise an arbitrage opportunity would exist.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "72bad22ce0b9a53d90e41eec6a0b3030", "text": "\"Why will they find financing when they leave the Euro? Why would their currencies not simply hyperinflate due to excessive issuance in an attempt to devalue? Which is worse for unemployment, austerity or hyperinflation? &gt;they'd be expelled by Germany This is a union correct? Why do you assume Germany holds all the cards? I've read that Gonzalo Lira essay and have read Mish about everyday since 2009, yet still do not think it is so obvious that the Euro will collapse. I gained quite a bit of skepticism from Barry Eichengreen's paper on the [Breakup of the Euro Area.](http://www.nber.org/papers/c11654.pdf?new_window=1) What I see right now is that so far the ECB has only acted in such a way as to prevent outright deflation and meet its 2% inflation target, but not to continuously outright fund the profligate governments. They let the bond markets force those governments into contraction or into default whereas the fed, with its dual mandate, will always buy the US bonds and eventually will inflate the currency as opposed to having a sovereign default. So I think we will see the ECB continue to print as much is needed to meet its mandate but at the same time there will be defaults, bank nationalizations and failures, and a continued lack of growth in the Euro area until eventually the austerity measures bring revenue and spending in line at which point the countries under heavy debt would be stupid not to default because they can self finance. Whereas in the US we are so dependent on deficit financing that as foreigners move further away from holding treasuries we become more susceptible to bond vigilantes taking the reigns which will force the feds hand into outright monetization. Then I think we will see our own government exacerbate inflation by bidding on the same goods that those dollars which no longer are going into treasuries are bidding on. Then I think we'll finally see bad inflation in the US. Of course as long as there is hoards of money fleeing Europe for the US \"\"safe haven,\"\" the lack of foreign treasury investment is pretty moot. *spelling\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cd99462a2beb0902adf9f5e34c303db6", "text": "I suppose they still could risk hyperinflation? Anyways, if they got their own currency that would probably be positive for their exports. Still, what are they going to export? Buying any raw materials would be super expensive with their devalued currency. What is your thought about their exporting with devalued currency?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a316b4e61c79499efab27a0de2c74573", "text": "I am going to clone an answer from another question that I wrote ;) and refer you to an article in the Wall Street Journal that I read this morning, What's at Stake in the Greek Vote, summarizing the likely outcome of the situation if a Euro exit looks likely after the election: ... we will see a full-fledged bank run. Greek banks would collapse ... The market exchange-rate would likely be two or three drachmas to the euro, which would double or triple the Greek price of imported goods within a few days. Prices of assets, including real-estate assets, would crumble. Those who moved their deposits abroad would be able to buy these assets cheaply, leading to a significant, regressive redistribution of Greek wealth. In short, you'd lose about two-thirds of your savings unless you were storing them somewhere safe from the conversion. The article also predicts difficulty importing goods (other nations will demand to be paid in euro, not drachma) leading to disruption of trade and various supply shortages.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ed038e26e5efea7e3bd88d6f5689b257", "text": "&gt; The European economy was not utterly doomed before the Euro, therefore the fall of the Euro does not doom their economy. I'm not sure how that's related at all. Just because at some random point in time, the European economy was doing OK, doesn't mean that it will definitely be ok again in the future after a jarring multi-national currency shift. There are tons of other factors in play. First of all, who's going to accept drachma again? What is it worth? What about pesata and lira? These currencies haven't been used in over a decade. Who is going to value them? Who is going to accept them? What happens when the Greeks default? When their pension checks start bouncing? This is what Germany is fearing. Who is going to buy their products when there is a major currency crisis going on?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7cdaadc6c03da77b13a3596a89844273", "text": "Rising rates is going to counteract the asset bubble and Draghi &amp; the rest of the ECB are well aware of this. Now that Spain &amp; Italy got their shit together they're going to go full steam ahead. Also Germany specifically is in trouble given its large companies such as BASF and others are threatened as companies on countries globally are consolidating and a focus by domestic experts on the trade deficit the U.S. holds with Germany. The European economy will be fine. Certain European assets too, but do not be too sure on the DAX.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "652a441b503ccae88a469cfbf4f0a0d6", "text": "I can't think of any specifically, but if you haven't already done so it would be worthwhile reading a textbook on macro-economics to get an idea of how money supply, exchange rates, unemployment and so on are thought to relate. The other thing which might be interesting in respect of the Euro crisis would be a history of past economic unions. There have been several of these, not least the US dollar (in the 19C, I believe); the union of the English and Scottish pound (early 1600s); and the German mark. They tend to have some characteristic problems, caused partly by different parts of the union being at different stages in an economic cycle. Unfortunately I can't think of a single text which gathers this together.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c4d799f952082cf6768813a8df4b3127", "text": "The Swiss franc has appreciated quite a bit recently against the Euro as the European Central Bank (ECB) continues to print money to buy government bonds issues by Greek, Portugal, Spain and now Italy. Some euro holders have flocked to the Swiss franc in an effort to preserve the savings from the massive Euro money printing. This has increased the value of the Swiss franc. In response, the Swiss National Bank (SNB) has tried to intervene multiple times in the currency market to keep the value of the Swiss franc low. It does this by printing Swiss francs and using the newly printed francs to buy Euros. The SNB interventions have failed to suppress the Swiss franc and its value has continued to rise. The SNB has finally said they will print whatever it takes to maintain a desired peg to the Euro. This had the desired effect of driving down the value of the franc. Which effect will this have long term for the euro zone? It is now clear that all major central bankers are in a currency devaluation war in which they are all trying to outprint each other. The SNB was the last central bank to join the printing party. I think this will lead to major inflation in all currencies as we have not seen the end of money printing. Will this worsen the European financial crisis or is this not an important factor? I'm not sure this will have much affect on the ongoing European crisis since most of the European government debt is in euros. Should this announcement trigger any actions from common European people concerning their wealth? If a European is concerned with preserving their wealth I would think they would begin to start diverting some of their savings into a harder currency. Europeans have experienced rapidly depreciating currencies more than people on any other continent. I would think they would be the most experienced at preserving wealth from central bank shenanigans.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9436fc2ca722cf39549c45710f53c2c0", "text": "It's slightly more complicated than that. Usually a country that was in Greece's situation would be able to use inflation to devalue their currency which would have the effect of lowering the value of the government's debts and also of making Greek prices more competitive in the international market. Or they could use quantitative easing to inject cheap cash into the economy to help stimulate it. Because Greece is on the Euro, however, they have no control over their own currency and their options are highly limited. Additionally, when you join the EU, especially the Eurozone, that's supposed to come with additional internal responsibilities, but it's also supposed to come with additional external ones as well. Greece has a responsibility to get its shit together, but the whole point is that more financially stable countries have a responsibility to help them. Right now that means Germany; they're the ones with the greatest control over the Euro and they're shying away from their duties. If the rest of Europe didn't want to risk ending up in this position they shouldn't have let Greece into the Eurozone.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3e27dbab65c841fe330d918640d3b114", "text": "\"&gt; Just because at some random point in time, the European economy was doing OK, doesn't mean that it will definitely be ok I'm not claiming it will be \"\"definitely be ok\"\". definitely ok != utterly doomed. &gt; What happens when the Greeks default? If they were paying in drachma, they wouldn't default. They'd print more drachma and inflation would occur. That's how currency imbalances adjust. Germany wants it both ways. They want a stable Europe-wide currency but they don't want a Europe-wide economy, they want their economy isolated from the problems in the rest of Europe. Germany should leave the Euro.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "5dcf17dd5e6e1b166ddf63d551af3eb9", "text": "The CNBC site is littered with videos. Whenever I click a link to one of their articles, it seems to be a video instead. Not like having the channel streamed, but most of the top stories.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "9f726f42e288957f12902d0dad5d50bf", "text": "\"There is probably a better way, but you can do the following: (1) Right click on the right pointing arrow next to the \"\"1-20 of xx rows\"\" message at the bottom right of the table, and select \"\"Copy link location\"\" (2) Paste that into the location (3) At the end of the pasted text there is a \"\"&output=json\"\", delete that and everything after it. (4) hit enter What you get is a page that displays the set of securities returned by and in a very similar display to the \"\"stock screener\"\" without the UI elements to change your selections. You can bookmark this page.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1e5211b469edeb470c91b8271c090ca9", "text": "\"TDAmeritrade, an online stock broker, provides banking services within their brokerage accounts. The service offers all of what you are looking for. HOWEVER, this service is only available for free with their \"\"Apex\"\" qualification. Here is a tariff of their fees and services.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e853758f05e570fe21d8ba61816753d6", "text": "Yes, there are plenty of sites that will do this for you. Yahoo, and MarketWatch are a few that come to mind first. I'm sure you could find plenty of others.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8be84e4133969ba6462f5fa6309b578b", "text": "About 10 years ago, I used to use MetaStock Trader which was a very sound tool, with a large number of indicators, but it has been a number of years since I have used it, so my comments on it will be out of date. At the time it relied upon me purchasing trading data myself, which is why I switched to Incredible Charts. I currently use Incredible Charts which I have done for a number of years, initially on the free adware service, now on the $10/year for EOD data access. There are quicker levels of data access, which might suit you, but I can't comment on these. It is web-based which is key for me. The data quality is very good and the number of inbuilt indicators is excellent. You can build search routines on the basis of specific indicators which is very effective. I'm looking at VectorVest, as a replacement for (or in addition to) Incredible Charts, as it has very powerful backtesting routines and the ability to run test portfolios with specific buy/sell criteria that can simulate and backtest a number of trading scenarios at the same time. The advantage of all of these is they are not tied to a particular broker.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7503085ce49c8242851ea5cf345ffa1f", "text": "\"You can have a look at betabrokers. It's an simulated stock trading platform which is entirely email-based. You start with 10 000$ and you make transactions with commands in the subject line of the email (e.g. \"\"buy 250$ AAPL\"\" or \"\"cover 20 shares of AAPL\"\"). It should be straightforward to add an email interface to your python script.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "48d391288ce8b4c9ec0f9744f83bcef9", "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", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5eebfa5b35609300c38071d7255ea7fb", "text": "I have maintained that traditional TV will be obsolete for years now... it seems a certain inevitability, since the invention of the internet. Even assuming it is certain, there are some things to consider: 1) Time Frame: It is taking way longer than I had expected for people to switch away from traditional subscriptions/packaging. Many people refuse to adopt/adapt to new technology and like the comfortable familiarity of TV. It is hard to say exactly when 'the big shift' will happen. 2) The companies making billions of dollars are likely monitoring their revenues/market very closely, and will probably know better than you when their current business model is about to fail. They may develop a plan to switch to internet based distribution, production of shows, or any number of other alternatives, which might not cause their share price to drop as drastically as one might predict. Profiting from this idea (as with any strategy) relies on you to identify the stocks that will be affected, and time your short position on them better than the rest of the market. Doing it now, or at an arbitrary date, means you will incur the opportunity cost of holding the instrument over a period when another investment would yield better returns (potentially even a long position on these same companies).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c7e85b5175eb7557058a06f4ece1e8e9", "text": "Sort of unrelated to the main post here, but I've been hoping to buy a few shares that would motivate me to follow the market and get a bit of hands on experience to better understand it all. What trading program would you recommend for a few simple trades like that? Thanks!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ee000eda9fda8d9a922a0c33865f3118", "text": "There can be the question of what objective do you have for buying the stock. If you want an income stream, then high yield stocks may be a way to get dividends without having additional transactions to sell shares while others may want capital appreciation and are willing to go without dividends to get this. You do realize that both Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline are companies that the total stock value is over $100 billion yes? Thus, neither is what I'd see as a growth stock as these are giant companies that would require rather large sales to drive earnings growth though it may be interesting to see what kind of growth is expected for these companies. In looking at current dividends, one is paying 3% and the other 5% so I'm not sure either would be what I'd see as high yield. REITs would be more likely to have high dividends given their structure if you want something to research a bit more.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4eeeb700522713da024781f45893656f", "text": "Interactive Brokers provides historical intraday data including Bid, Ask, Last Trade and Volume for the majority of stocks. You can chart the data, download it to Excel or use it in your own application through their API. EDIT: Compared to other solutions (like FreeStockCharts.com for instance), Interactive Brokers provides not only historic intraday LAST**** trades **but also historic BID and ASK data, which is very useful information if you want to design your own trading system. I have enclosed a screenshot to the chart parameter window and a link to the API description.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9b42ee8b333f4eda0048aaa07d6c5a1c", "text": "Edgar Online is the SEC's reporting repository where public companies post their forms, these forms contain financial data Stock screeners allow you to compare many companies based on many financial metrics. Many sites have them, Google Finance has one with a decent amount of utility", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7e6a30f5616e94418f406aebfface37b", "text": "Have you looked into GnuCash? It lets you track your stock purchases, and grabs price updates. It's designed for double-entry accounting, but I think it could fit your use case.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7c3ce52de9c86c161b7c8be72e8139b4", "text": "Yes, http://shares.telegraph.co.uk/stockscreener/ has what you're looking for.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ad11f81020bb2f35e29d20631bdeb059", "text": "Sort of. I mean that even though TV generally sucks, and there are better alternatives, the average human may not be smart enough to care. TV is easy, something they're used to, and requires no energy to watch or make any changes. So, they may eventually catch on, but the TV industry will probably be able to stay a step or two ahead of them simply because it's not too hard to do, and nothing will happen too fast. I learned about investing back in the dot com days. I invested too heavily in high tech thinking it was really happening, and I was somewhat right, but it just didn't happen as quickly as we all thought, and a lot of companies went broke because they had no short-term income or plan, and ran out of capital. Now I know there's more to it than simply knowing which way the wind blows. You also need to know about butterflies and hurricanes so to speak. Timing is important, and shorting stocks can be profitable unless it takes too long, and you end up being forced to act before you're ready.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "23fa93ff5c1d0cd50c7e10115d36dfb3", "text": "Crown Equity Holdings Inc., together with its digital network, currently provides electronic media services specializing in online publishing, which brings together targeted audiences and advertisers. Crown Equity Holdings Inc. (CRWE) announced that it has launched CRWE Tube, www.crwetube.com, a video sharing site that allows billions of people around the world to upload, watch and share original videos.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "71abadf909286b1f642408f3d9ddf0d8", "text": "The trader has purchased 1095 options, each of which is a contract which entitles him to sell 100 shares of Cisco stock for $16 a share. He paid $71 for each contract (71 cents a share x 100) which is roughly $78k total. He will get $109,500 for each dollar below $16 Cisco's stock is when he exercises it (he can buy the stock for the going rate and then sell it for $16 immediately), or he can sell the option itself to someone else for a similar gain (usually a little more, especially if the option has a long time until it expires). If the option expires when the stock is over $16/share, he gets nothing; i.e. the original $78k is lost. For reference, Cisco's stock was trading at $17.14/share as of market close on March 18, 2010. The share price had recently been boosted by the recent news that they would be paying a quarterly dividend. It has been heading mostly downward since February 9, after they announced that they're not expecting profits to be as good as the analysts thought they would be: they claim that people aren't buying too much networking equipment just now, and they're also facing mounting competition from the likes of HP and Juniper for switches, and Aruba / HP / Motorola for wireless devices. They may lose market share or need to cut prices, hurting profits. Either way, there's certainly a real possibility of their stock going below $16 in the next few months, so people are willing to pay for those options. (Disclosure: I work for Aruba, who competes with Cisco. I also own shares of Aruba, possess assorted stock options and similar equity grants, and participate in the employee stock purchase program. I also own shares in Cisco indirectly through various mutual funds and ETFs.)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5647ff51faca34bb74459ad4f3d56779", "text": "\"fennec has a very good answer but i feel it provides too much information. So i'll just try to explain what that sentence says. Put option is the right to sell a stock. \"\"16 puts on Cisco at 71 cents\"\", means John comes to Jim and says, i'll give you 71 cent now, if you allow me to sell one share of Cisco to you at $16 at some point in the future ( on expiration date). NYT quote says 1000 puts that means 1000 contracts - he bought a right to sell 100,000 shares of Cisco on some day at $16/share. Call option - same idea: right to buy a stock.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "b6a90c268daabff60f9717e9e8d84869", "text": "Options, both puts and calls, are typically written/sold at different strike prices. For example, even though the stock of XYZ is currently trading at $12.50, there could be put options for prices ranging from $0.50 to $30.00, just as an example. There are several factors that go into determining the strike prices at which people are willing to write options. The writer/seller of an option is the person on the other side of the trade that has the opposite opinion of you. If you are interested in purchasing a put on a stock to hedge your downside, that means the writer/seller of the put is betting that you are wrong and that the stock price will rise instead.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "617a7517cb417ed7ce90bb074959be08", "text": "On the US markets, most index options are European style. Most stock and ETF options are, as you noted, American style.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1d353d5aea6ca0469893b26ab93ca89f", "text": "&gt; But, it seems like the pool is adding value out of nowhere! Options don't simply exercise in the void. There are proceeds from the exercise (option-holders must pay into the company). This amount is an additional investment in the company that hasn't precisely materialized yet, but is generally expected to (and is difficult to alter, as it's likely part of an employment contract).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "37b135e4dca1a8ccbea2e58b9507de8c", "text": "No, it means what it says. Prices change, hence price of the derivative can go down even if the price of the underlying doesn't change (e.g. theta decay in options).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "24741103ebc1802d83207a30facc9852", "text": "\"I have traded options, but not professionally. I hadn't come across this terminology, but I expect it counts how far in-the-money, as an ordinal, an option is relative to the distinct strike prices offered for the option series — a series being the combination of underlying symbol, expiration date, and option type (call/put); e.g., all January 2015 XYZ calls, no matter the strike. For instance, if stock XYZ trades today at $11 and the available January 2015 XYZ calls have strike prices of $6, $8, $10, $12, $14, and $16, then I would expect the $10 call could be called one strike in the money, the $8 two strikes in the money, etc. Similarly, the $12 and $14 calls would be one and two strikes out of the money, respectively. However, if tomorrow XYZ moves to $13, then the $10 previously known as one strike in the money would now be two strikes in the money, and the $12 would be the new one strike in the money. Perhaps this terminology arose because many option strategies frequently involve using options that are at- or near-the-money, so the \"\"one strike in\"\" (or out) of the money contracts would tend to be those employed frequently? Perhaps it makes it easier for people to describe strategies in a more general sense, without citing specific examples. However, the software developer in me dislikes it, given that the measurement is relative to both the current underlying price (which changes quickly), and the strike prices available in the given option series. Hence, I wouldn't use this terminology myself and I suggest you eschew it, too, in favor of something concrete; e.g. specify your contract strikes in dollar terms — especially when it matters.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c41e61f063420043ec5dd6378082c882", "text": "\"As I understand it, Implied Volatility represents the expected gyrations of an options contract over it's lifetime. No, it represents that expected movement of the underlying stock, not the option itself. Yes, the value of the option will move roughly in the same direction the value of the stock, but that's not what IV is measuring. I even tried staring at the math behind the Options pricing model to see if that could make more sense for me but that didn't help. That formula is correct for the Black-Scholes model - and it is not possible (or at least no one has done it yet) to solve for s to create a closed-form equation for implied volatility. What most systems do to calculate implied volatility is plug in different values of s (standard deviation) until a value for the option is found that matches the quoted market value ($12.00 in this example). That's why it's called \"\"implied\"\" volatility - the value is implied from market prices, not calculated directly. The thing that sticks out to me is that the \"\"last\"\" quoted price of $12 is outside of the bid-ask spread of $9.20 to $10.40, which tells me that the underlying stock has dropped significantly since the last actual trade. If the Implied Vol is calculated based on the last executed trade, then whatever algorithm they used to solve for a volatility that match that price couldn't find a solution, which then choose to show as a 0% volatility. In reality, the volatility is somewhere between the two neighbors of 56% and 97%, but with such a short time until expiry, there should be very little chance of the stock dropping below $27.50, and the value of the option should be somewhere around its intrinsic value (strike - stock price) of $9.18.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d35cff4fb7363e321d88241932eab2a0", "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.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6507e8f241b4987bd91346cf5ee8cd93", "text": "\"Being \"\"Long\"\" something means you own it. Being \"\"Short\"\" something means you have created an obligation that you have sold to someone else. If I am long 100 shares of MSFT, that means that I possess 100 shares of MSFT. If I am short 100 shares of MSFT, that means that my broker let me borrow 100 shares of MSFT, and I chose to sell them. While I am short 100 shares of MSFT, I owe 100 shares of MSFT to my broker whenever he demands them back. Until he demands them back, I owe interest on the value of those 100 shares. You short a stock when you feel it is about to drop in price. The idea there is that if MSFT is at $50 and I short it, I borrow 100 shares from my broker and sell for $5000. If MSFT falls to $48 the next day, I buy back the 100 shares and give them back to my broker. I pocket the difference ($50 - $48 = $2/share x 100 shares = $200), minus interest owed. Call and Put options. People manage the risk of owning a stock or speculate on the future move of a stock by buying and selling calls and puts. Call and Put options have 3 important components. The stock symbol they are actionable against (MSFT in this case), the \"\"strike price\"\" - $52 in this case, and an expiration, June. If you buy a MSFT June $52 Call, you are buying the right to purchase MSFT stock before June options expiration (3rd Saturday of the month). They are priced per share (let's say this one cost $0.10/share), and sold in 100 share blocks called a \"\"contract\"\". If you buy 1 MSFT June $52 call in this scenario, it would cost you 100 shares x $0.10/share = $10. If you own this call and the stock spikes to $56 before June, you may exercise your right to purchase this stock (for $52), then immediately sell the stock (at the current price of $56) for a profit of $4 / share ($400 in this case), minus commissions. This is an overly simplified view of this transaction, as this rarely happens, but I have explained it so you understand the value of the option. Typically the exercise of the option is not used, but the option is sold to another party for an equivalent value. You can also sell a Call. Let's say you own 100 shares of MSFT and you would like to make an extra $0.10 a share because you DON'T think the stock price will be up to $52/share by the end of June. So you go to your online brokerage and sell one contract, and receive the $0.10 premium per share, being $10. If the end of June comes and nobody exercises the option you sold, you get to keep the $10 as pure profit (minus commission)! If they do exercise their option, your broker makes you sell your 100 shares of MSFT to that party for the $52 price. If the stock shot up to $56, you don't get to gain from that price move, as you have already committed to selling it to somebody at the $52 price. Again, this exercise scenario is overly simplified, but you should understand the process. A Put is the opposite of a Call. If you own 100 shares of MSFT, and you fear a fall in price, you may buy a PUT with a strike price at your threshold of pain. You might buy a $48 June MSFT Put because you fear the stock falling before June. If the stock does fall below the $48, you are guaranteed that somebody will buy yours at $48, limiting your loss. You will have paid a premium for this right (maybe $0.52/share for example). If the stock never gets down to $48 at the end of June, your option to sell is then worthless, as who would sell their stock at $48 when the market will pay you more? Owning a Put can be treated like owning insurance on the stock from a loss in stock price. Alternatively, if you think there is no way possible it will get down to $48 before the end of June, you may SELL a $48 MSFT June Put. HOWEVER, if the stock does dip down below $48, somebody will exercise their option and force you to buy their stock for $48. Imagine a scenario that MSFT drops to $30 on some drastically terrible news. While everybody else may buy the stock at $30, you are obligated to buy shares for $48. Not good! When you sold the option, somebody paid you a premium for buying that right from you. Often times you will always keep this premium. Sometimes though, you will have to buy a stock at a steep price compared to market. Now options strategies are combinations of buying and selling calls and puts on the same stock. Example -- I could buy a $52 MSFT June Call, and sell a $55 MSFT June Call. I would pay money for the $52 Call that I am long, and receive money for the $55 Call that I am short. The money I receive from the short $55 Call helps offset the cost of buying the $52 Call. If the stock were to go up, I would enjoy the profit within in $52-$55 range, essentially, maxing out my profit at $3/share - what the long/short call spread cost me. There are dozens of strategies of mixing and matching long and short calls and puts depending on what you expect the stock to do, and what you want to profit or protect yourself from. A derivative is any financial device that is derived from some other factor. Options are one of the most simple types of derivatives. The value of the option is derived from the real stock price. Bingo? That's a derivative. Lotto? That is also a derivative. Power companies buy weather derivatives to hedge their energy requirements. There are people selling derivatives based on the number of sunny days in Omaha. Remember those calls and puts on stock prices? There are people that sell calls and puts based on the number of sunny days in Omaha. Sounds kind of ridiculous -- but now imagine that you are a solar power company that gets \"\"free\"\" electricity from the sun and they sell that to their customers. On cloudy days, the solar power company is still on the hook to provide energy to their customers, but they must buy it from a more expensive source. If they own the \"\"Sunny Days in Omaha\"\" derivative, they can make money for every cloudy day over the annual average, thus, hedging their obligation for providing more expensive electricity on cloudy days. For that derivative to work, somebody in the derivative market puts a price on what he believes the odds are of too many cloudy days happening, and somebody who wants to protect his interests from an over abundance of cloudy days purchases this derivative. The energy company buying this derivative has a known cost for the cost of the derivative and works this into their business model. Knowing that they will be compensated for any excessive cloudy days allows them to stabilize their pricing and reduce their risk. The person selling the derivative profits if the number of sunny days is higher than average. The people selling these types of derivatives study the weather in order to make their offers appropriately. This particular example is a fictitious one (I don't believe there is a derivative called \"\"Sunny days in Omaha\"\"), but the concept is real, and the derivatives are based on anything from sunny days, to BLS unemployment statistics, to the apartment vacancy rate of NYC, to the cost of a gallon of milk in Maine. For every situation, somebody is looking to protect themselves from something, and somebody else believes they can profit from it. Now these examples are highly simplified, many derivatives are highly technical, comprised of multiple indicators as a part of its risk profile, and extremely difficult to explain. These things might sound ridiculous, but if you ran a lemonade stand in Omaha, that sunny days derivative just might be your best friend...\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "524afee62b9dc9c8606c83b85562b9b0", "text": "Put options are basically this. Buying a put option gives you the right but not the obligation to sell the underlying security at a certain date for a fixed price, no matter its current market value at that time. However, markets are largely effective, and the price of put options is such that if you bought them to cover you the whole time, you would on average pay more than you'd gain from the underlying security. There is no such thing as a risk-free investment.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6a036dd6f6514c29d721f7415141b6b3", "text": "I'll just copypasta out of the book for the sake of clarity: * If you think about it, you see that the only brokers who touch the switch for light bulb number 64 are those whose numbers are divisors of 64. That is, light bulb 64 has its state changed by brokers whose numbers are factors of 64. This means brokers 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64. Because light bulb 64 is originally off, it must be after this odd number of switches that it is on. * You want to be short a put if you expect a price rise. In this case, you expect to keep the option premium when the option expires worthless. There are a few pages worth of questions for the options, so the explanation for the IBM one is somewhat limited.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d1791a006cbced74f19d94ae64a7dc2e", "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.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fe2d92ad24ac168a27b7be79ec6c04e9", "text": "\"You're forgetting the fundamental issue, that you never have to actually exercise the options you buy. You can either sell them to someone else or, if they're out of the money, let them expire and take the loss. It isn't uncommon at all for people to buy both a put and call option (this is a \"\"straddle\"\" when the strike price of both the put and call are the same). From Investopedia.com: A straddle is an options strategy in which the investor holds a position in both a call and put with the same strike price and expiration date, paying both premiums. This strategy allows the investor to make a profit regardless of whether the price of the security goes up or down, assuming the stock price changes somewhat significantly. Read more: Straddle http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/straddle.asp#ixzz4ZYytV0pT\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a41b28962081b4bb521da2ee9f30c4f8", "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)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a21796cb81d0fc3f257f941646965b13", "text": "The put will expire and you will need to purchase a new one. My advise will be that the best thing is to sell more calls so your delta from the short call will be similr to the delta from the equity holding.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "150b659334d280ebad2c703db5e3618f", "text": "At this point the cost of borrowing money is very low. For the sake of argument, say it is 1% per year for a large institution. I can either go out and find a client to invest 100,000$ and split profit and loss with them. Or, I could borrow 50,000$, pay 500$/year in interest, and get the same return and loss, while moving the market half as much (which would let me double my position!) In both cases the company is responsible for covering all fixed costs, like paying for traders, trades, office space, branding, management, regulatory compliance, etc. For your system to work, the cost to gather clients and interact with them has to be significantly less than 1% of the capital they provide you per year. At the 50% level, that might actually be worth it for the company in question. Except at the 50% level you'd have really horrible returns even when the market went up. So suppose a more reasonable level is the client keeps 75% of the returns (which compares to existing companies which offer larger investors an 80% cut on profits, but no coverage on losses). Now the cost to gather and interact with clients has to be lower than 2500$ per million dollars provided to beat out a simple loan arrangement. A single sales employee with 100% overhead (office, all marketing, support, benefits) earning 40,000$/year has to bring in 32 million dollar-years worth of investment every year to break even. Cash is cheap. Investment houses sell cash management, and charge for it. They don't sell shared investment risk (at least not to retail investors), because it would take a lot of cash for it to be worth their bother. More explicitly, for this to be viable, they'd basically have to constantly arrange large hedges against the market going down to cover any losses. That is the kind of thing that some margin loans may require. That would all by itself lower their profits significantly, and they would be exposed to counter-party risk on top of that. It is much harder to come up with a pile of cash when the markets go down significantly. If you are large enough to be worthwhile, finding a safe counterparty may be nearly impossible.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "87a9f1d455a99760f43c4389b1a0863d", "text": "If you are looking for an advisor to just build a portfolio and then manage it, a robo-advisor can be beneficial (especially if the alternative is doing it your self, assuming that you are not well versed in the markets). The primary risk with one is that it does not build a portfolio that accurately represents your needs and risk tolerance. Some firms base the number of questions they ask you on sign up based not on what is needed to get a good profile, but on how many before people decide that it is too much hassle and bail. That usually results in poorer profiles. Also a live advisor may be better at really getting at your risk tolerance. Many of day our risk tolerance is one thing but in reality we are not so risk tolerant. Once the profile is built. The algorithms maintain your portfolio on a day by day basis. If rebalancing opportunities occur they take advantage of it. The primary benefit of a robo-advisor is lower fees or smaller minimum account balances. The downside is the lack of human interaction and financial advise outside of putting together a portfolio.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "29629cf2cb765542ac0bf5c48c75910f", "text": "They've been around long enough now for there to be past performance figures you can google for. I think you'll find the results aren't very encouraging. I personally don't think there's a huge risk that the robots will lose all your money, but there's every reason to expect they aren't likely to perform better than traditional managers or beat the market. At the end of the day the robots are employing a lot of analysis and management techniques that traditional managers have been using, and since traditional managers use computers to do it efficiently there's not much gain IMO. Yes in theory labour is expensive so cutting it out is good, but in practise, in this case, the amount of money being managed is huge and the human cost is pretty insignificant. I personally don't believe that the reduced fees represent the cost of the human management, I think it's just marketing. There might be some risk that the robots can be 'gamed' but I doubt the potential is very great (your return might in theory be a fraction of a percent less over time because it's going on). The problem here is that the algorithms are functionally broadly known. No doubt every robo adviser has its own algorithms that in theory are the closely guarded secret, but in reality a broad swath of the functional behaviour will be understood by many people in the right circles, and that gives rise to predictability, and if you can predict investment/trading patterns you can make money from those patterns. That means humans making money (taking margin away) from the robots, or robots making money from other robots that are behind the curve. If robo advisers continue to take off I would expect them to under perform more and more.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "934db7ebe0f517eaa0042ab40cbaf8e8", "text": "Totally agree. Autonomous cars can **increase margins** in the insurance industry since there will be fewer claims. **for Geico - less administration and higher margins. Buffet is probably ecstatic.** Edit: Not saying that this is in the best interests of the public, but if insurers can get away with it I'm sure they'll try.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "55baf837a5adacbc1887364ddc7a650d", "text": "As a 22 year old planning for your financial life, it is obvious to say that saving as much as you can to invest for the long run is the smartest thing to do from a financial point of view. In general, at this point, aged 22, you can take as much risk as you'll ever will. You're investing for the very long term (+30/+40 years). The downside of risk, the level of uncertainty on returns (positive or negative), is most significant on the short term (<5years). While the upside of risk, assuming you can expect higher returns the more risk you take, are most significant on the long term. In short: for you're financial life, it's smart to save as much as you can and invest these savings with a lot of risk. So, what is smart to invest in? The most important rule is to keep your investment costs as low as possible. Risk and returns are strongly related, however investment costs lower the returns, while you keep the risk. Be aware of the investment industry marketing fancy investment products. Most of them leave you with higher costs and lower returns. Research strongly suggests that an lowcost etf portfolio is our best choice. Personally, i disregard this new smart beta hype as a marketing effort from the financial industry. They charge more investment costs (that's a certain) and promise better returns because they are geniuses (hmmm...). No thanks. As suggested in other comments, I would go for an low cost (you shouldn't pay more than 0.2% per year) etf portfolio with a global diversification, with at least 90% in stocks. Actually that is what I've been doing for three years now (I'm 27 years old).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "55b1341a3a982569d7c490daba32c0b2", "text": "\"I don't think blanket answers are very helpful. You are asking the right question when you are young! You have a large number of investment options and Australia has the Superannuation system that you can extract significant tax value from. I've not attempted to grade these with regard to \"\"risk\"\", as different people will rate various things with different levels, depending on their experience and knowledge. Consider the following factors for you:-\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5cadac83c625dea37ac879fa77f3d6ce", "text": "If you think you can manage the risk and the spread is ultimately worth it to you, there's nothing stopping you. I know in the U.S., in CA specifically, you need to have $85,000 annual income or net worth over some threshold to be able to loan more than $2,500 via peer-to-peer loan investing. I've had an account at prosper since around 2010, it does pretty well. It's made my taxes a bit more complicated each year, but it's been profitable for me. I wouldn't lever up on it though. My Prosper Experience My experience with Prosper has generally been positive. My real motivation for starting the account was generating a dataset that I could analyze, here's some of that analysis. I started the account by trickling $100 /month in to buy four $25 loans. Any payments received from these loans were used to buy more $25 loans. I've kept my risk to an average of about A- (AA, A, B, C, D, E, HR are the grades); though the interest rates have reduced over time. At this point, I have a few hundred loans outstanding in various stages of completion. In calendar 2015 I had a monthly average of 0.75% of my loans charged-off and about 3% of loans at some stage of delinquency. I receive about 5.5% of my principle value in receipts on average each month, including loan pay-offs and charge-offs. Interest and other non-principle payments comprise just shy of 20% of my monthly receipts. Prosper's 1% maintenance fee translates to about 8% of my monthly non-principle receipts. It's all a pretty fine line, it wouldn't take many defaults to turn my annual return negative; though in 5 years it hasn't happened yet. Considering only monthly charge-offs against monthly non-principle receipts I had two net negative months in 2015. I made about a net 4.5% annual return on my average monthly outstanding principle for calendar 2015. When I log in to my Prosper account it claims my return is closer to 7.5% (I'm not sure how that number is calculated). The key is diversifying your risk just like a bank would. I don't know how the other services function at a nuts and bolts level. With prosper I choose which loans to fund which means I determine my risk level. I assume the other services function similarly. Regarding collection of charged-off loans. I don't know how much real effort is expended by Prosper. I've had a few notes sold for about 10% of the outstanding balance; and I don't know who they were sold to. Comically, I have loan that's made more payments in collections than when it was in good standing. There is definitely more to this than handing over $15,000 and receiving 6% on it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f1182b37a245e09836037c4d1d97fecb", "text": "First--and I'm only repeating what has been said already--roboadvisors are a great way to avoid paying high MERs and still not have to do much yourself. The Canadian Couch Potato method is great IF you are disciplined and spend the time every few months to regularly re-balance your portfolio. However, any savings you gain in low MERs is going to very likely be lost if you aren't re-balancing or if you aren't patient and disciplined in your investing. For that reason, the Couch Potato way isn't appropriate for 97% of the general population in my opinion. But if you are reading this, you probably already aren't a member of the general population. For myself, life seems always too busy and I've got a kid on the way. I see a huge value in using a robo-advisor (or alternatively Tangerine) and saving time in my day. The next question, which robo-advisor is best? I did a bunch of research here and my conclusion is that they are all fairly similar. My final three came down to Wealthbar/Wealthsimple/NestWeatlh. Price structures vary, but minus a few dollars here or there, there isn't a lot of difference in costs. What made WealthSimple stick out was that they provide some options for US citizens that help me prevent tax headaches. They also got back to me by email with really detailed answers when I had questions, which was really appreciated. Their site and monthly updates are minimalist and intuitive to navigate. Great user experience all around (I do web design myself). My gut feeling is that they have their act together and will stick around as a company for a long while.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6733d9bb2f5cf453abc85a901eb8cb9f", "text": "It's a good question, I am amazed how few people ask this. To summarise: is it really worth paying substantial fees to arrange a generic investment though your high street bank? Almost certainly not. However, one caveat: You didn't mention what kind of fund(s) you want to invest in, or for how long. You also mention an “advice fee”. Are you actually getting financial advice – i.e. a personal recommendation relating to one or more specific investments, based on the investments' suitability for your circumstances – and are you content with the quality of that advice? If you are, it may be worth it. If they've advised you to choose this fund that has the potential to achieve your desired returns while matching the amount of risk you are willing to take, then the advice could be worth paying for. It entirely depends how much guidance you need. Or are you choosing your own fund anyway? It sounds to me like you have done some research on your own, you believe the building society adviser is “trying to sell” a fund and you aren't entirely convinced by their recommendation. If you are happy making your own investment decisions and are merely looking for a place to execute that trade, the deal you have described via your bank would almost certainly be poor value – and you're looking in the right places for an alternative. ~ ~ ~ On to the active-vs-passive fund debate: That AMC of 1.43% you mention would not be unreasonable for an actively managed fund that you strongly feel will outperform the market. However, you also mention ETFs (a passive type of fund) and believe that after charges they might offer at least as good net performance as many actively managed funds. Good point – although please note that many comparisons of this nature compare passives to all actively managed funds (the good and bad, including e.g. poorly managed life company funds). A better comparison would be to compare the fund managers you're considering vs. the benchmark – although obviously this is past performance and won't necessarily be repeated. At the crux of the matter is cost, of course. So if you're looking for low-cost funds, the cost of the platform is also significant. Therefore if you are comfortable going with a passive investment strategy, let's look at how much that might cost you on the platform you mentioned, Hargreaves Lansdown. Two of the most popular FTSE All-Share tracker funds among Hargreaves Lansdown clients are: (You'll notice they have slightly different performance btw. That's a funny thing with trackers. They all aim to track but have a slightly different way of trading to achieve it.) To hold either of these funds in a Hargreaves Lansdown account you'll also pay the 0.45% platform charge (this percentage tapers off for portolio values higher than £250,000 if you get that far). So in total to track the FTSE All Share with these funds through an HL account you would be paying: This gives you an indication of how much less you could pay to run a DIY portfolio based on passive funds. NB. Both the above are a 100% equities allocation with a large UK companies weighting, so won't suit a lower risk approach. You'll also end up invested indiscriminately in eg. mining, tobacco, oil companies, whoever's in the index – perhaps you'd prefer to be more selective. If you feel you need financial advice (with Nationwide) or portfolio management (with Nutmeg) you have to judge whether these services are worth the added charges. It sounds like you're not convinced! In which case, all the best with a low-cost passive funds strategy.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "659d1634090f51bdf8cbd058f18116fd", "text": "One can never be too cautious when when choosing a financial adviser. For example, has the company your adviser claims to represent ever been sanctioned by the local financial authorities? Does your adviser reside in the country in which he purports to operate? Have you thoroughly researched his background? It is also important to bear in mind what venues a company uses for advertising - if the company resorts to advertising by spamming, then their overall business practices are likely unethical and this could lead to trouble down the line. Finally, one should also research how the company's clientele has been built up. Was it through word of mouth or was the client data acquired by other means?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "25bdde789ef49986a26dd7005d9afb1f", "text": "\"For starters, the risk-free rate has nothing to do with stocks. It would be independent of anything. It pays out the same return in all states of nature. The definition of a risk-free asset is that regardless of how the universe turns out, including a meteor striking the Earth killing everyone but the recipient, then the payout would happen exactly as planned. One could imagine a computer still being on, connected to a power supply and printing a check. Most people use the 90-day t-bill as the risk-free rate. A beta greater than one implies it is more volatile than the market, not that it moves more perfectly. The CAPM should not be used for this. Cryptocurrencies should not be used with this model because they have valuation dynamics related to the new issue of coins. In other words, they have non-market price movements as well as market price movements. In general, you should not use the CAPM because it doesn't work empirically. It is famous, but it is also wrong. A scientific hypothesis that is not supported by the data is a bad idea. My strong recommendation is that you read \"\"The Intelligent Investor,\"\" by Benjamin Graham. It was last published in 1972, and it is still being printed. I believe Warren Buffett wrote the current forward for it. Always go where the data supports you and never anywhere else, no matter how elegant. Finally, unless you are doing this like a trip to Vegas, for fun and willing to take the losses, I would avoid cryptocurrencies because you don't know what you are doing yet. It is obvious from the posting. I have multiple decades working in every type of financial institution and at every level, bottom to top. I also have a doctorate, and I am an incredible researcher. I am professionally qualified in three different disciplines. If you want to learn how to do this, start with the \"\"Intelligent Investor.\"\" Get a basic book on accounting and learn basic accounting. Pick up economics textbooks at least through \"\"Intermediate\"\" for both microeconomics and macroeconomics. Get William Bolstad's book \"\"Introduction to Bayesian Statistics.\"\" You will need them for reasons that go very far beyond this post. Trust me; you want to master that book. Find a statistician and ask them to teach it to you as a special topics course. It will help you as both either a Marine officer or a Naval officer. Then after that pick up a copy of \"\"Security Analysis.\"\" Either the 1943 copy (yes it is in print) by Benjamin Graham if you feel good about accounting, or the 1987 copy by Cottle under the Graham/Dodd imprimatur. Then, if you are still interested in cryptocurrencies and they will be blasé by then, then pick up an economics textbook on money. If I were you, I would learn about Yap money, commodity money, and prison money first, then you might understand why a cryptocurrency may not be an investment for you.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9ed2cb593ee57de5f9f887f837964aa8", "text": "A CDIC-insured high-interest savings bank account is both safe and liquid (i.e. you can withdraw your money at any time.) At present time, you could earn interest of ~1.35% per year, if you shop around. If you are willing to truly lock in for 2 years minimum, rates go up slightly, but perhaps not enough to warrant loss of liquidity. Look at GIC rates to get an idea. Any other investments – such as mutual funds, stocks, index funds, ETFs, etc. – are generally not consistent with your stated risk objective and time frame. Better returns are generally only possible if you accept the risk of loss of capital, or lock in for longer time periods.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "01bfef7eb36808691beb9f1d8e5b1480", "text": "\"In the UK there are Premium Bonds, http://www.nsandi.com/. In simple terms these get you a \"\"raffle ticket\"\" for each £1 you invest. Each month multiple tickets are drawn and they each win between £25 and £1m. Your capital does not go down but you aren't guaranteed to win. So you can't lose your money but there's potential to not make any either.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "686113d3d16706ed6ffe900f4d461adf", "text": "\"If your financial needs aren't complex, and mostly limited to portfolio management, consider looking into the newish thing called robo-advisers (proper term is \"\"Automated investing services\"\"). The difference is that robo-advisers use software to manage portfolios on a large scale, generating big economy of scale and therefore offering a much cheaper services than personal advisor would - and unless your financial needs are extremely complex, the state of the art of scaled up portfolio management is at the point that a human advisor really doesn't give you any value-add (and - as other answers noted - human advisor can easily bring in downsides such as conflict of interest and lack of fiduciary responsibility). disclaimer: I indirectly derive my living from a company which derives a very small part of their income from a robo-adviser, therefore there's a possible small conflict of interest in my answer\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a6840bb77480d78d9db4803102ba102e", "text": "I will attempt to answer three separate questions here: The standard answer is that an emergency fund should not be in an investment that can lose value. The safest course of action is to put it in a savings account or other very low risk investment somewhere. This question becomes: can a reasonable and low risk investment in Sweden be comparable to or better than a low risk investment in Brazil? Inflation in Brazil has averaged a little less than 6% over the last 10 years with a recent spike up above 8%. A cursory search indicates interest rates on savings accounts in Brazil are outpacing inflation so you might still expect a positive return on money in a savings account there. By contrast, Sweden's inflation rate has been around 1% over the last 10 years and has hovered around 0 or even deflation in recent years. Swedish interest rates for savings accounts right now are very low, nearly 0%. Putting money in a savings account in Sweden would likely hold its value or lose a slight amount of value. Based on this, you might be better off leaving your emergency fund invested in BRL in Brazil. The answer to this a little unclear. The Brazilian stock market has been all over the place in the last 10 years, with a slight downard trend in recent years. In comparison, Sweden's stock market has shown fairly consistent growth in spite of the big dip in 2008. Given this, it seems like the fairest comparison would your current 13% ROI investment in Brazil vs. a fund or ETF that tracks the Swedish stock market index. If we assume a consistent 13% ROI on your investment in Brazil and a consistent inflation rate of 6%, your adjusted ROI there would be around 7% per year. The XACT OMS30 ETF that tracks the Swedish OMS 30 Index has a 10 year annualized return of 9.81%. If you subtract 0.8% inflation, you get an adjusted ROI 9%. Based on this, Sweden may be a safer place for longer term, moderate risk investments right now.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "96d0479db259b1d1bbc57b467acf8cf2", "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.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "abfe341af61637ca246e2c5f0a6d6b15", "text": "\"First of all, congratulations on being in an incredible financial position. you have done well. So let's look at the investment side first. If you put 400,000 in a decent index fund at an average 8% growth, and add 75,000 every year, in 10 years you'll have about $1.95 Million, $800k of which is capital gain (more or less due to market risk, of course) - or $560k after 30% tax. If you instead put it in the whole life policy at 1.7% you'll have about $1.3 Million, $133k of which is tax-free capital gain. So the insurance is costing you $430K in opportunity cost, since you could have done something different with the money for more return. The fund you mentioned (Vanguard Wellington) has a 10-year annualized growth of 7.13%. At that growth rate, the opportunity cost is $350k. Even with a portfolio with a more conservative 5% growth rate, the opportunity cost is $178k Now the life insurance. Life insurance is a highly personal product, but I ran a quick quote for a 65-year old male in good health and got a premium of $11,000 per year for a $2M 10-year term policy. So the same amount of term life insurance costs only $110,000. Much less than the $430k in opportunity cost that the whole life would cost you. In addition, you have a mortgage that's costing you about $28K per year now (3.5% of 800,000). Why would you \"\"invest\"\" in a 1.7% insurance policy when you are paying a \"\"low\"\" 3.5% mortgage? I would take as much cash as you are comfortable with and pay down the mortgage as much as possible, and get it paid off quickly. Then you don't need life insurance. Then you can do whatever you want. Retire early, invest and give like crazy, travel the world, whatever. I see no compelling reason to have life insurance at all, let alone life insurance wrapped in a bad investment vehicle.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4fb93947461cf2614b37f4ea50bbec9b", "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.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "d65931bcdd9257af1f8355851a61b1f3", "text": "A day is a long time and the rate is not the same all day. Some sources will report a close price that averages the bid and ask. Some sources will report a volume-weighted average. Some will report the last transaction price. Some will report a time-weighted average. Some will average the highest and lowest prices for the interval. Different marketplaces will also have slightly different prices because different traders are present at each marketplace. Usually, the documentation will explain what method they use and you can choose the source whose method makes the most sense for your application.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "79d5438b0c557a93e7157a96506906bf", "text": "I work on a buy-side firm, so I know how these small data issues can drive us crazy. Hope my answer below can help you: Reason for price difference: 1. Vendor and data source Basically, data providers such as Google and Yahoo redistribute EOD data by aggregating data from their vendors. Although the raw data is taken from the same exchanges, different vendors tend to collect them through different trading platforms. For example, Yahoo, is getting stock data from Hemscott (which was acquired by Morningstar), which is not the most accurate source of EOD stocks. Google gets data from Deutsche Börse. To make the process more complicated, each vendor can choose to get EOD data from another EOD data provider or the exchange itself, or they can produce their own open, high, low, close and volume from the actual trade tick-data, and these data may come from any exchanges. 2. Price Adjustment For equities data, the re-distributor usually adjusts the raw data by applying certain customized procedures. This includes adjustment for corporate actions, such as dividends and splits. For futures data, rolling is required, and back-ward and for-warding rolling can be chosen. Different adjustment methods can lead to different price display. 3. Extended trading hours Along with the growth of electronic trading, many market tends to trade during extended hours, such as pre-open and post-close trading periods. Futures and FX markets even trade around the clock. This leads to another freedom in price reporting: whether to include the price movement during the extended trading hours. Conclusion To cross-verify the true price, we should always check the price from the Exchange where the asset is actually traded. Given the convenience of getting EOD data nowadays, this task should be easy to achieve. In fact, for professional traders and investors alike, they will never reply price on free providers such as Yahoo and Google, they will most likely choose Bloomberg, Reuters, etc. However, for personal use, Yahoo and Google should both be good choices, and the difference is small enough to ignore.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e8fb271efafbf0a477901f22bb9c94d3", "text": "\"The answer from littleadv perfectly explains that the mere exchange ratio doesn't say anything. Still it might be worth adding why some currencies are \"\"weak\"\" and some \"\"strong\"\". Here's the reason: To buy goods of a certain country, you have to exchange your money for currency of that country, especially when you want to buy treasuries of stocks from that country. So, if you feel that, for example, Japanese stocks are going to pick up soon, you will exchange dollars for yen so you can buy Japanese stocks. By the laws of supply and demand, this drives up the price. In contrast, if investors lose faith in a country and withdraw their funds, they will seek their luck elsewhere and thus they increase the supply of that currency. This happened most dramatically in recent time with the Icelandic Krona.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c974fce2e0de21ef5938bef66aad614f", "text": "\"Using your example link, I found the corresponding chart for a stock that trades on London Stock Exchange: https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=RIO.L#symbol=RIO.L;range=1d As you can see there, the chart runs from ~8:00am to ~4:30pm, and as I write this post it is only 2:14pm Eastern Time. So clearly this foreign chart is using a foreign time zone. And as you can see from this Wikipedia page, those hours are exactly the London Stock Exchange's hours. Additionally, the closing price listed above the graph has a timestamp of \"\"11:35AM EST\"\", meaning that the rightmost timestamp in the graph (~4:30pm) is equal to 11:35AM EST. 16:30 - 11:30 = 5 hours = difference between London and New York at this time of year. So those are two data points showing that Yahoo uses the exchange's native time zone when displaying these charts.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ff8c228fa00407ba410e26d425901054", "text": "\"For the purposes of report generation, I would recommend that you present the data in the currency of the user's home country. You could present another indicator, if needed, to indicate that a specific transaction was denominated in a foreign currency, where the amount represents the value of the foreign-denominated transaction in the user's home country Currency. For example: Airfare from USA to London: $1,000.00 Taxi from airport to hotel: $100.00 (in £) In terms of your database design, I would recommend not storing the data in any one denomination or reference currency. This would require you to do many more conversions between currencies that is likely to be necessary, and will create additional complexity where in some cases, you will need to do multiple conversions per transaction in and out of your reference currency. I think it will be easier for you to store multiple currencies as themselves, and not in a separate reference currency. I would recommend storing several pieces of information separately for each transaction: This way, you can create a calculated Amount for each transaction that is not in the user's \"\"home\"\" currency, whereas you would need to calculate this for all transactions if you used a universal reference currency. You could also get data from an external source if the user has forgotten the conversion rate. Remember that there are always fees and variations in the exchange rate that a user will get for their home country's currency, even if they change money at the same place at two different times on the same day. As a result, I would recommend building in a simple form that allows a user to enter how much they exchanged and how much they got back to calculate the exchange rate. So for example, let's say I have $ 200.00 USD and I exchanged $ 100.00 USD for £ 60.00, and there was a £ 3.00 fee for the exchange. The exchange rate would be 0.6, and when the user enters a currency conversion, your site could create three separate transactions such as: USD Converted to £: $100.00 £ Received from Exchange: £ 60.00 Exchange Fee: £ 3.00 So if the user exchanged currency and then ran a balance report by Currency, you could either show them that they now have $ 100.00 USD and £ 57.00, or you could alternatively choose to show the £ 57.00 that they have as $95.00 USD instead. If you were showing them a transaction report, you could also show the fee denominated in dollars as well. I would recommend storing your balances and transactions in their own currencies, as you will run into some very interesting problems otherwise. For example, let's say you used a reference currency tied to the dollar. So one day I exchange $ 100.00 USD for £ 60.00. In this system I would still have 100 of my reference currency. However, if the next day, the exchange rate falls and $ 1.00 USD is only worth £ 0.55, and I change my £ 60.00 back into USD, I will get approxiamately $ 109.09 USD back for my £ 60.00. If I then go and buy something for $ 100.00 USD, the balance of the reference currency would be at 0, but I will still have $ 9.09 USD in my pocket as a result of the fluctuating currency values! That is why I'd recommend storing currencies as themselves, and only showing them in another currency for convenience using calculations done \"\"on the fly\"\" at report runtime. Best of luck with your site!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "500aba91d79281094dbadba775df5b7a", "text": "I'm using iBank on my Mac here and that definitely supports different currencies and is also supposed to be able to track investments (I haven't used it to track investments yet, hence the 'supposed to' caveat).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6b0fa8c314404e4ce8dd329fb6961701", "text": "Assuming the data you're referring to is this line: the difference might be related to the different exchanges on which the stock trades. FINRA could be listing the reported volume from one exchange, while the NASDAQ data might be listing the volume on all exchanges. This is an important distinction because AAV is a Canadian company that is listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange and the NYSE. The Q at the end of the line stands for NASDAQ, according to FINRA's codebook for those data. My guess is that the FINRA data is only reporting the volume for the NASDAQ exchange and not the total volume for all exchanges (Toronto, NASDAQ, NYSE, etc.) while the data straight from NASDAQ, oddly enough, is reporting the total volume. However, FINRA could also face reporting discrepancies, since it's a regulatory body and therefore might not have the most up-to-date volume data that the various exchanges can access. I don't know if it's related or not, but looking at the NASDAQ historical data, it looks like the volume on March 6, the day you're asking about, was much lower than the volume in most of the days immediately before or after it. For all I know, something might have happened that day concerning that particular stock or the market as a whole. I don't remember anything in particular, but you never know.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c293eedb83f25dabcb22559f40ee799b", "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.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b69187cb5be0290794bbdd55916a4d36", "text": "Gold is traded on the London stock exchange (LSE) and the New York stock exchange (NYSE) under various separate asset tickers, mainly denominated in sterling and US dollars respectively. These stocks will reflect FX changes very quickly. If you sold LSE gold and foreign exchanged your sterling to dollars to buy NYSE gold you would almost certainly lose on the spreads upon selling, FX'ing and re-buying. In short, the same asset doesn't exist in multiple currencies. It may have the same International Securities Identification Number (ISIN), but it can trade with different Stock Exchange Daily Official List (SEDOL) identifiers, reflecting different currencies and/or exchanges, each carrying a different price at any one time.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a41efbee5c826099835787e354a813b0", "text": "I just tried doing that on my PP which is in the Netherlands, I have added a USD bank account (from my dutch bank) and they sent the verification amount in Euros, I called the bank and wonder why they didn't let me choose account currency they said it's not possible and if I cashout Dollars that I have in my PP (cause we usually do international business so we set it to dollars) it will be changed to Euros, So we decided to keep the dollars in account to pay our bills instead of getting ripped off by PayPal in xchange rates.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "21cef6e11914c95fd0ec6207b10be7a6", "text": "Yes, one such provider is: https://www.fxcompared.com/ They allow you to compare a number of foreign currency providers, and take into account all of the fees and spreads, and give you a simple number which you can use to compare them - the amount of foreign currency you get for your domestic currency.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f5bc73aa50634a8e28447a7f2f5f2eb9", "text": "My instinct says that there should be no difference. Your instincts are right. Your understanding of math is not so much. You sold $100K at the current price of 7500000RUB, but ended up buying at 3500000, you earned 3500000RUB. That's 100% in USD (50% in RUB). You bought 7500000RUB for the current price of $100K, but sold later for $200K. You earned $100K (100% in USD), which at that time was equal 3500000RUB. You earned 3500000RUB. That's 50% in RUB. So, as your instincts were saying - no difference. The reason percentages are different is because you're coming from different angles. For the first case your currency is RUB, for the second case your currency is USD, and in both cases you earned 100%. If you use the same currency for your calculations, percentages change, but the bottom line - is the same.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ccef86861b5918e8ad02925f6b4ea9c4", "text": "Is there not some central service that tracks current currency rates that banks can use to get currency data? Sure. But this doesn't matter. All the central service can tell you is how much the rate was historically. But the banks/PayPal don't care about the historical value. They want to know the price that they'll pay when they get around to switching, not the last price before the switch. Beyond that, there is a transaction cost to switching. They have to pay the clearinghouse for managing the transaction. The banks can choose to act as a clearinghouse, but that increases their risk. If the bank has a large balance of US dollars but dollars are falling, then they end up eating that cost. They'll only take that risk if they think that they'll make more money that way. And in the end, they may have to go on the currency market anyway. If a European bank runs out of US dollars, they have to buy them on the open market. Or a US bank might run out of Euros. Or Yen. Etc. Another problem is that many of the currency transactions are small, but the overhead is fixed. If the bank has to pay $5 for every currency transaction, they won't even break even charging 3% on a $100 transaction. So they delay the actual transaction so that they can make more than one at a time. But then they have the risk that the currency value might change in the meantime. If they credit you with $97 in your account ($100 minus the 3% fee) but the price actually drops from $100 to $99, they're out the $1. They could do it the other way as well. You ask for a $100 transaction. They perform a $1000 transaction, of which they give you $97. Now they have $898 ($1000 minus the $5 they paid for the transaction plus the $3 they charged you for the transaction). If there's a 1% drop, they're out $10.98 ($8.98 in currency loss plus a net $2 in fees). This is why banks have money market accounts. So they have someone to manage these problems working twenty-four hours a day. But then they have to pay interest on those accounts, further eating into their profits. Along with paying a staff to monitor the currency markets and things that may affect them.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "560106099cf6c6936b0ff47fe5ac7342", "text": "Much as I hate to agree with you (because my personal bias is towards the belief China is cooking the books in a significant way) we should consider that this is the most likely explanation. Reconciling exactly a superset of data against hard-to-measure subsets is near impossible and, in an economy as dynamic as China's, it would be very difficult to get this right to such a small margin.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "45faf5c8e5f8721d6d3e17915f55e55b", "text": "\"the Yen is *the source* of **\"\"carry trades\"\"**. It means whichever savvy people with means who want to borrow money to invest on a leveraged basis anywhere in the world, come running to borrow in yen. Why? Because (1) Japan is an advanced economy whose currency is freely convertible to many many currencies/countries who are happy to convert yen back and forth. (2) Japanese interest rates are low, lower than in the west b/c of their earlier deflationary crises due to too much debt and due to west requiring Yen to be too strong after the Plaza accords; so it's cheap to borrow there. So a lot of investment around the world has, in origin, come from borrowing in japan. As long as that investment is \"\"on\"\", the loan to japan remains outstanding. But the investor earns the \"\"carry\"\": the rate of difference between the cost of borrowing in Yen, and earning the return from whatever investment it is. When scary things happen (like war, disaster, coups etc) the big money bags/investors pull their money out of their investments and put it in their banks. This means they sell their investments, wherever they are, convert some of that money back into yent ( BUY YEN ) to return their yen loans. yen goes up.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "099eac91527a5d69a45d7fc1555ee08c", "text": "No. Getting more credit lowers your credit utilization ratio (if you don't use it), which raises your credit rating, this can also be done by asking for a higher limit on your existing credit card. Also, there is a chance that the company you got your first card from won't pull your credit a second time when they go to the underwriter. As any extensions of credit lower your credit score, although the credit utilization ratio is weighted more heavily.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "a363dc606b8f75dc5fba7f9e4c16aa95", "text": "\"Leverage here is referring to \"\"financial leverage\"\". This is the practice of \"\"levering\"\" [ie increasing, like the use of a lever to increase the amount of weight you can lift] the value of your investment by taking on debt. For example: if you have 100k in cash, you can buy a 100k rental property. Assume the property makes 10k a year, net of expenses [10%]. Now assume the bank will also give you a 100k mortgage, at 3%. You could take the mortgage, plus your cash, and buy a 200k rental property. This would earn you 20k from the rental property, less 3k a year in interest costs [the 3%]. Your total income would be 17k, and since you only used 100k of your own money, your rate of return would now be 17% instead of 10%. This is financial leveraging. Note that this increases your risk, because if your investment fails not only have you lost your own money, you now need to pay back the bank. \"\"Beta riders\"\" appears to be negative commentary on investors who use Beta to calculate the value of a particular stock, without regard to other quantitative factors. Therefore \"\"leveraged beta riders\"\" are those who take on additional risk [by taking on debt to invest], and invest in a manner that the author would perhaps considered \"\"blindly\"\" following Beta. However, I have never seen this term before, and it appears tainted by the author's views on Quants. A \"\"quant process driven discipline\"\" appears to be positive commentary on investors who use detailed quantitative analysis to develop rules which they rigorously follow to invest. I have never seen this exact phrasing before, and like the above, it appears tainted by the author's views on Quants. I am not providing any opinion on whether \"\"beta riding\"\" or \"\"quant processes\"\" are good or bad things; this is just my attempt to interpret the quote as you presented it. Note that I did not go to the article to get context, so perhaps something else in the article could skew the language to mean something other than what I have presented.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3749bd9223d2080c026d8c67c9ac9201", "text": "\"Translation : Funds managers that use traditionnal methods to select stocks will have less success than those who use artificial intelligence and computer programs to select stocks. Meaning : The use of computer programs and artificial intelligence is THE way to go for hedge fund managers in the future because they give better results. \"\"No man is better than a machine, but no machine is better than a man with a machine.\"\" Alternative article : Hedge-fund firms, Wall Street Journal. A little humour : \"\"Whatever is well conceived is clearly said, And the words to say it flow with ease.\"\" wrote Nicolas Boileau in 1674.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "f4644d808e6ad59b2b32bb273f916605", "text": "Just adding on a touch, when market participants refer to swaps they are talking about the fixed leg. So for example, if I said a 5y Receiver, it means I am receiving fixed, paying floating. Ie I want yields to fall. Opposite for a Payer. Swaption is just an option on these swaps, so basic swaptions: Long Payer Short Payer Long Receiver Short Receiver", "title": "" }, { "docid": "72fd6e652e8b3d14b6257d864896e856", "text": "Citing the Yahoo Finance Help page, Beta: The Beta used is Beta of Equity. Beta is the monthly price change of a particular company relative to the monthly price change of the S&P500. The time period for Beta is 3 years (36 months) when available. Regarding customised time periods, I do not think so.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "70591461ef9fce7e7b32b7b259bf14f6", "text": "The quant aspect '''''. This is the kind of math I was wondering if it existed, but now it sounds like it is much more complex in reality then optimizing by evaluating different cost of capital. Thank you for sharing", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3539d10c4d9b8ee4cb6d011696498707", "text": "If you have your long positions established and are investing responsibly (assuming you know the risks and can accept them), the next step IMO is typically learning hedging - using options or option strategies to solidify positions. Collars (zero cost) and put options are a good place to start your education and they can be put to use to both speculate (what you are effectively doing with short-position trading) or long-term oriented edging. Day trading equites can be lucrative but it is a difficult game to play - learning options (while more complex on speculation) can provide opportunities to solidify positions. Options trading is difficult grounds. I just think the payoff long term to knowing options is much greater than day-trading tactics (because of versatility)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0836a633f7ed214595e07c085c93713a", "text": "Finance noob here. Am I reading the article right that he's saying MPT bad, active management good? If so, what is that saying about how I should manage my portfolio (assuming I am only dedicating a few hours a month)? &gt;he suggests that if you don't have an edge, no one needs to play the game So what do I do then? Are there specific strategies? Also, could you suggest a good explanation of why MPT is bad?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e4d57b940f6bcc3cb7b72f3bb209aefc", "text": "This isn't totally wrong- there are hedge funds that are long 150% of AUM and short 50%. However, Rentech has said that holding a position for 8 seconds is long for them, so that's not what they're doing. I'd assume the 4X leverage most just refers to option positions that have delta 4 on average. They also may be borrowing money, which they can probably do extremely cheaply since they have a 35 year track record showing they're essentially risk-free.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "408604a92de5c1ef2ea8333597a02c7b", "text": "\"A straddle is an options strategy in which one \"\"buys\"\" or \"\"sells\"\" options of the same maturity (expiry date) that allow the \"\"buyer\"\" or \"\"seller\"\" to profit based on how much the price of the underlying security moves, regardless of the direction of price movement. IE: A long straddle would be: You buy a call and a put at the same strike price and the same expiration date. Your profit would be if the underlying asset(the stock) moves far enough down or up(higher then the premiums you paid for the put + call options) (In case, one waits till expiry) Profit = Expiry Level - Strike Price - (Premium Paid for Bought Options) Straddle\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4856d07c8eb94bd28097da5edfd84770", "text": "long deep ITM calls is equivalent to owning the equity. You're going to pay alot and hence will start off in a hole already, and you aren't getting too much leverage there at all depending how deep ITM you go. Covariance scales, but assuming B-S in order to get nice scaling and ignoring the risks you are actually taking with options (unlimited down-size ie you can lose your entire investment in the option, people forget this) will screw you unless you really know what you are dong. Leverage means increasing your risk. long dep ITM is not obtaining much leverage and therefore not risking too much. but you aren't going ot get 3-4x leverage this way. you get leverage by saying: oh, i have 100, i could invest in 1 share of stock OR I could buy 100 worth of some option. If I pick a deep ITM (think strike = 0) it's identical to owing the stock. If i pick ATM, i have a ~50/50 chance of wining, so i should be able to double my upside. If I go OTM, i can increase my exposure to the upside while increasing hte chance that my options expire worthless. So really, i have no idea why deep ITM do what you are trying to do. and If you don't either, you probably shouldn't do it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "faa8b56eb94acc86948a4221b8a79aa5", "text": "Assuming you were immersed in math with your CS degree, the book **'A Non-Random Walk Down Wall Street' by Andrew Lo** is a very interesting book about the random walk hypothesis and it's application to financial markets and how efficient markets might not necessarily imply complete randomness. Lots of higher level concepts in the book but it's an interesting topic if you are trying to branch out into the quant world. The book isn't very specific towards algorithmic trading but it's good for concept and ideas. Especially for general finance, that will give you a good run down about markets and the way we tackle modern finance. **A Random Walk Down Wall Street** (which the book above is named after) by **Burton Malkiel** is also supposed to be a good read and many have suggested reading it before the one I listed above, but there really isn't a need to do so. For investing specifically, many mention **'The Intelligent Investor' by Benjamin Graham** who is the role model for the infamous Warren Buffet. It's an older book and really dry and I think kind of out dated but mostly still relevant. It's more specifically about individual trading rather than markets as a whole or general markets. It sounds like you want to learn more about markets and finance rather than simply trading or buying stocks. So I'd stick to the Andrew Lo book first. --- Also, since you might not know, it would be a good idea to understand the capital asset pricing model, free cash flow models, and maybe some dividend discount models, the last of which isn't so much relevant but good foundations for your finance knowledge. They are models using various financial concepts (TVM is almost used in every case) and utilizing them in various ways to model certain concepts. You'd most likely be immersed in many of these topics by reading a math-oriented Finance book. Try to stay away from those penny stock trading books, I don't think I need to tell a math major (who is probably much smarter than I am) that you don't need to be engaging in penny stocks, but do your DD and come to a conclusion yourself if you'd like. I'm not sure what career path you're trying to go down (personal trading, quant firm analyst, regular analyst, etc etc) but it sounds like you have the credentials to be doing quant trading. --- Check out www.quantopian.com. It's a website with a python engine that has all the necessary libraries installed into the website which means you don't have to go through the trouble yourself (and yes, it is fucking trouble--you need a very outdated OS to run one of the libraries). It has a lot of resources to get into algorithmic trading and you can begin coding immediately. You'd need to learn a little bit of python to get into this but most of it will be using matplotlib, pandas, or some other library and its own personal syntax. Learning about alpha factors and the Pipeline API is also moderately difficult to get down but entirely possible within a short amount of dedicated time. Also, if you want to get into algorithmic trading, check out Sentdex on youtube. He's a python programmer who does a lot of videos on this very topic and has his own tool on quantopian called 'Sentiment Analyzer' (or something like that) which basically quantifies sentiment around any given security using web scrapers to scrape various news and media outlets. Crazy cool stuff being developed over there and if you're good, you can even be partnered with investors at quantopian and share in profits. You can also deploy your algorithms through the website onto various trading platforms such as Robinhood and another broker and run your algorithms yourself. Lots of cool stuff being developed in the finance sector right now. Modern corporate finance and investment knowledge is built on quite old theorems and insights so expect a lot of things to change in today's world. --- With a math degree, finance should be like algebra I back in the day. You just gotta get familiar with all of the different rules and ideas and concepts. There isn't that much difficult math until you begin getting into higher level finance and theory, which mostly deals with statistics anyways like covariance and regression and other statistic-related concepts. Any other math is simple arithmetic.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ab52113ec7e01f75d7dbf10acd3beb4c", "text": "\"I'm searching for a master's thesis topic in equity investment or portfolio management and I'd be grateful if someone could tell me what are the hot \"\"trends\"\" going on right now on the market? Any new phenomenons (like the rise of blockchain, etf... but more relate to the equity side) or debates ( the use of the traditional techniques such as Beta to calculate WACC for example ...) ?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "94fd0ac68a72a65937095c6edeaedb74", "text": "Thanks very much. 12b1 is a form that explains how a fund uses that .25-1% fee, right? So that's part of the puzzle im getting at. I'm not necessarily trying to understand my net fees, but more who pays who and based off of what. For a quick example, betterment bought me a bunch of vanguard ETFs. That's cool. But vanguard underperformed vs their blackrock and ssga etfs. I get that vanguard has lower fees, but the return was less even taking those into account. I'm wondering, first what sort of kickback betterment got for buying those funds, inclusive of wholesale deals, education fees etc. I'm also wondering how this food chain goes up and down the sponsor, manager tree. I'm sure it's more than just splitting up that 1%", "title": "" }, { "docid": "43531848555bdaee1aff5d1e8f3c3af6", "text": "Yeah, the past 4-5 years have been rough on fundamental guys (not to say companies like AAPL didn't fare well), but EVERYTHING has been macro. When correlations go to 1 across the board and central bank legislation has have a bigger impact on earnings than new products/good mgmt/etc. it's hard to be a fundamentalist. Like your style, this market environment is ripe for HF's though that can use leverage/hedges/and short-term positioning to create alpha while the mutual funds are stuck in long-term structured investment objective ruts and reduced risk. Not to say you can't create alpha through selecting better/undervalued stocks, it's just been damn near impossible the last 5 years to do it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f585b0f2748cd5f1f356a01f1d3886fa", "text": "\"Let me start by hedging a little bit: our industry (finance, I mean) is cyclical, and disciplines tend to surge, to fall, then to rise reborn from the ashes. Fixed income was dead, then fixed income was the place to be, then everyone got laid off, then there was a huge rally, etc. etc. BUT... if you get into the wrong area at the wrong time, well it doesn't really matter if it recovers in 20 years, does it? As the great man wrote: **\"\"in the long run, we're all dead.\"\"** Regarding equity research (and here I especially mean **sell side** equity research), the super-volatile markets have made it harder for traditional equity funds to eke out a living, much less to meet investor expectations, so margins have gotten thinner. The increased correlations and increased volatility has just made stock picking less productive as a strategy. As a result, traditional equity funds have cut back on their trading activity, have consolidated their business to one or two brokers, and have stopped explicitly paying for research. This means fewer soft and hard dollars flowing to less research. Furthermore, sell side research is less productive these days, it was just easier in the \"\"old\"\" bull market, there was more room to find value and pick stocks. All of these factors are contributing to a decline in the research business, as evidenced by the layoffs we can all find by searching google news. All that having been said, buy side research is a different story, but the strategies are more complex and you really have to deliver value to your PM in a timely manner.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "37fe0e231579670b8da116d8a164aff4", "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", "title": "" }, { "docid": "496276d9042f9d98e6d75a68adff302b", "text": "CFDs (Contracts for Difference) are basically a contract between you and the broker on the difference in price of the underlying between the time you open a position and close a position. You are not actually buying the underlying. With share CFDs, the outcome is a bit like buying the underlying shares on margin. You pay interest for every day you hold the CFDs overnight for long CFDs. However, with short positions, you get paid interest for every day you hold your short position overnight. Most people use CFDs for short term trading, however they can be used for medium to longer term trading just as you would hold a portfolio on margin. What you have to remember is that because you are buying on margin you can lose more than your initial contract amount. A way to manage this risk is by using position sizing and stop loses. With your position sizing, if you wanted to invest $10,000 in a particular share trading at $10 per share, you would then buy 1000 shares or 1000 CFDs in that share. Your initial expense with the CFDs might be only $1000 (at a margin rate of 10%). So instead of increasing your risk by having an initial outlay of $10,000 with the CFDs you limit your risk to the same as you were buying the shares directly.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "18fdaf795363cebce215bc069bf9f8f1", "text": "Today typically a Business needs to hold accounts in more than one currency. Banks in certain countries are offering what is called a dual currency account. It is essentially 2 accounts with same account number but different currency. So One can have an account number say 123456 and have it in say AUD and USD. So the balance will always show as X AUD and Y USD. If you deposit funds [electronic, check or cash] in USD; your USD balance goes up. Likewise at the time of withdrawal you have to specify what currency you are withdrawing. Interest rates are calculated at different percentage for different currencies. So in a nutshell it would like operating 2 accounts, with the advantage of remembering only one account number. Designate a particular currency as default currency. So if you don't quote a currency along with the account number, it would be treated as default currency. Otherwise you always quote the account number and currency. Of-course bundled with other services like free Fx Advice etc it makes the entire proposition very attractive. Edit: If you have AUD 100 and USD 100, if you try and withdraw USD 110, it will not be allowed; Unless you also sign up for a auto sweep conversion. If you deposit a GBP check into the account, by default it would get converted into AUD [assuming AUD is the default currency]", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "f8a85fd74968db82a68d08b94722c7d6", "text": "There are short-term and long term aspects. In the long term, if you live and work in Australia and plan to continue doing both indefinitely, you might as well move all your cash investments there. There would be no point bearing the exchange rate risks. It may be worth keeping the account open with just enough credit to stop it being shut down. There is no point needing to (think about) filing foreign tax returns just because you have an account earning a small amount of interest. In the short term, I think the more important question is practicality rather than exchange rate risk. You want to have enough cash in both countries that if you suddenly have to pay say an apartment deposit or a bill, you won't be caught short. So I would leave at least a few thousands dollars in a US bank account until at least a couple of months after the move, when I was sure everything was settled. Good luck.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b0faa9b09d609afbd8ea2deaf040ae91", "text": "If the account is not dollar-denominated, I would say it does not make sense at all to have dollar-denominated statements. Such a statement would not even be accurate for any reasonable amount of time (since FX rates constantly fluctuate). This would be a nightmare for accounting purposes. If you really need to know the statements in USD, I think the best practice would be to perform the conversion yourself using Excel or some similar software.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ef4596cc691792cd683cf0bc01b94162", "text": "If I understand your question, you're misunderstanding the buy/sell spread, and at least in this instance seem to be in an unfortunate situation where the spread is quite large. The Polish Zloty - GBP ideal exchange rate is around 5.612:1. Thus, when actually exchanging currency, you should expect to pay a bit more than 5.612 Zloty (Zloties?) to get one Pound sterling, and you should expect to get a bit less than 5.612 Zloty in exchange for one Pound sterling. That's because you're giving the bank its cut, both for operations and so that it has a reason to hold onto some Zloty (that it can't lend out). It sounds like Barclay's has a large spread - 5.211 Buy, 5.867 Sell. I would guess British banks don't need all that many Zloty, so you have a higher spread than you would for USD or EUR. Other currency exchange companies or banks, particularly those who are in the primary business of converting money, may have a smaller spread and be more willing to do it inexpensively for you. Also, it looks like the Polish banks are willing to do it at a better rate (certainly they're giving you more Zloty for one Pound sterling, so it seems likely the other way would be better as well, though since they're a Polish bank it's certainly easier for them to give you Zloty, so this may be less true). Barclay's is certainly giving you a better deal on Pounds for a Zloty than they are Zloty for a Pound (in terms of how far off their spread is from the ideal).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ca5d202b93c164af5f61d58a5cd0aa01", "text": "Here's what the GnuCash documentation, 10.5 Tracking Currency Investments (How-To) has to say about bookkeeping for currency exchanges. Essentially, treat all currency conversions in a similar way to investment transactions. In addition to asset accounts to represent holdings in Currency A and Currency B, have an foreign exchange expenses account and a capital gains/losses account (for each currency, I would imagine). Represent each foreign exchange purchase as a three-way split: source currency debit, foreign exchange fee debit, and destination currency credit. Represent each foreign exchange sale as a five-way split: in addition to the receiving currency asset and the exchange fee expense, list the transaction profit in a capital gains account and have two splits against the asset account of the transaction being sold. My problems with this are: I don't know how the profit on a currency sale is calculated (since the amount need not be related to any counterpart currency purchase), and it seems asymmetrical. I'd welcome an answer that clarifies what the GnuCash documentation is trying to say in section 10.5.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7e6ce529c96e20905f0789621c8fcfea", "text": "The easiest options appear to be to open an account with one of the large multinational banks like Citi. They have options such as opening two separate checking accounts, one in each currency, and Citi in particular has an international account that appears to make mutli-currency personal banking easier. All of the options have minimum balance requirements or fees for conversion, but if you need quick access this seems to be the best bet. Even if this is a one-time event and you don't need the account, a bank like Citi may be able to help you cash the check and get access to the funds quicker than a national or local bank. http://www.citibank.com/ipb-global/homepage/newsite/content/english/multi_cap_bank_depo.htm Alternatively if you know anyone with a US bank account you can deposit it with them and take the cash withdrawal from their account, assuming they agree, the check isn't too large, etc.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4bcf037ef9312226087b3bd30dba8e63", "text": "There is a service TransferWise through which you can send money from UK banks to EUR bank accounts in the EU for a 1 GBP fee (much cheaper then about 25 GBP for a SWIFT transfer). You send them a UK national GBP transfer to their UK HSBC account, and they send the equivalent amount in EUR from their Irish EUR bank account to your EUR account - for example in Germany. What is best, is that they use bare mid-market ForEx exchange rates, without any markup on the GBP to EUR exchange rate, which is usually in the range of 2% to 5% in banks, so you don't lose anything on the exchange rate.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "28a0e1b5359a14a50a5383e06c2e5531", "text": "The big risk for a bank in country X is that they would be unfamiliar with all the lending rules and regulations in country Y. What forms and disclosures are required, and all the national and local steps that would be required. A mistake could leave them exposed, or in violation of some obscure law. Plus they wouldn't have the resources in country Y to verify the existence and the actual ownership of the property. The fear would be that it was a scam. This would likely cause them to have to charge a higher interest rate and higher fees. Not to mention that the currency ratio will change over the decades. The risks would be large.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d67f73d2dcae87e644012d8234d2125b", "text": "\"Echoing that bank fees are mostly \"\"because they can\"\", although partly this is because simply holding onto the money doesn't really pay enough for the physical infrastructure of branches, ATMs and staff. So like a budget airline they make it up on additional fees. But that document doesn't actually say they charge 3% for currency conversion! It's \"\"0.20% of transaction amount\"\" for currency conversion, which is not bad (although watch out for the \"\"spread\"\" between buying and selling rates). I see \"\"International POS/ATM Transaction Fee 3% of transaction amount\"\", which is very different. That's a card fee. The big issue with these is fraud - your card number suddenly being used in a different country will nearly always trigger extra fraud checks. It also involves a much more complicated settlement process. I'm more unimpressed with the monthly service charges and the huge $85 fee for international wire transfers.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "49be636cb79217a992a2a5337909c617", "text": "\"See my comment below about the official exchange rate. There is no \"\"official\"\" exchange rate to apply as far as I'm aware. However the bank is already applying the same exchange rate you can find in the forex markets. They are simply applying a spread (meaning they will add some amount to the exchange rate whichever way you are exchanging currency). You will almost certainly not find a bank that doesn't apply a spread. Of course, their spread might be large, so that's why it is good to compare rates. By the way, 5 GBP/month seems reasonable for a foreign currency (or any) acct. The transaction fees might be cheaper in a different \"\"package\"\" so check. You should consider trying PayPal. Their spread is quite small - and publicly disclosed - and their per-transaction fees are very low. Of course, this is not a bank account. But you can easily connect it to your bank account and transfer the money between accounts quickly. They also offer free foreign currency accounts that you can basically open and close in a click. Transfers are instantaneous. I am based in Germany but I haven't had a problem with clients from various English-speaking countries using PayPal. They actually seem to prefer it in many instances.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "38a479e3fac8a4d4deb5d8caa993d72a", "text": "\"Having savings only in your home currency is relatively 'low risk' compared with other types of 'low diversification'. This is because, in a simple case, your future cash outflows will be in your home currency, so if the GBP fluctuates in value, it will (theoretically) still buy you the same goods at home. In this way, keeping your savings in the same currency as your future expenditures creates a natural hedge against currency fluctuation. This gets complicated for goods imported from other countries, where base price fluctuates based on a foreign currency, or for situations where you expect to incur significant foreign currency expenditures (retirement elsewhere, etc.). In such cases, you no longer have certainty that your future expenditures will be based on the GBP, and saving money in other currencies may make more sense. In many circumstances, 'diversification' of the currency of your savings may actually increase your risk, not decrease it. Be sure you are doing this for a specific reason, with a specific strategy, and not just to generally 'spread your money around'. Even in case of a Brexit, consider: what would you do with a bank account full of USD? If the answer is \"\"Convert it back to GBP when needed (in 6 months, 5 years, 30, etc.), to buy British goods\"\", then I wouldn't call this a way to reduce your risk. Instead, I would call it a type of investment, with its own set of risks associated.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ef1c7c2a0da5d0c4d348db3446d4e5be", "text": "It is a rather complex system, but here is a rough summary. Interbank tranfers ultimately require a transfer of reserves at the central bank. As a concrete example, the bank of england system is the rtgs. Only the clearing banks and similar (e.g. bacs) have access to rtgs. You can send a chaps payment fairly quickly, but that costs. Chaps immediately triggers an rtgs transfer once the sending bank agrees and so you can be certain that the money is being paid. Hence its use for large amounts. Bacs also sits on the rtgs but to keep costs down it batches tranfers up. Because we are talking about bank reserve movements, checks have to be in place and that can take time. Furthermore the potential for fraud is higher than chaps since these are aggregrated transactions a layer removed, so a delay reduces the chance of payment failing after apparently being sent. Faster payments is a new product by bacs that speeds up the bacs process by doing a number of transfers per day. Hence the two hour clearing. For safety it can only be used for up to 10k. Second tier banks will hold accounts with clearing banks so they are another step down. Foreign currency transfers require the foreign Central Bank reserve somewhere, and so must be mediated by at least one clearing bank in that country. Different countries are at different stages in their technology. Uk clearing is 2h standard now but US is a little behind I believe. Much of Europe is speeding up. Rather like bitcoin clearing, you have a choice between speed and safety. If you wait you are more certain the transaction is sound and have more time to bust the transfer.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9fbd618f21167b6f2ca0204c0cb3d4ed", "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.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4bb4d41c48db1ec43b5a542e87f30065", "text": "I think the one single answer is that the answer depends on the two countries involved and their banks' practices. To find that answer, you need to ask other expats from your country living in France and ask them for their experience. Note that most expats do not know what fees they are paying. For example, in the Philippines, the lowest fee charged still involves waiting 30 days to get your money. Specifically, I opened a US dollar savings account with the minimum of US $500 required (other rules are involved for opening a bank account), deposited a personal check drawn on my US bank account (no fee charged), and waited 30 calendar days to withdraw USD bills. The Philippines bank did not have a branch in the US, but had financial arrangements with US banks. After getting USD dollars in my hand, I walked to a nearby exchange business store (which usually offered a better daily rate than a bank, but a rate between the banks' buy and sell rates) and exchange the dollars for pesos. Note that years ago, banks did not give USD bills, when dollars were scarce in the Philippines. However, this process does not work in Thailand, due to bank rules against private individuals opening a USD account, with exceptions. And there are still fees involved. March 2017", "title": "" }, { "docid": "afbb0d017059f0ed498dfe39c919d4e2", "text": "For the first part of your question, I think the answer is a combination of three things: (1) Bigger companies have leverage to negotiate better deals due to volume. (2) Some of these companies are also taking bookings from outside the US for people traveling to the US (either directly or through affiliates). This means that they also have income in other currencies, so they may not actually be making as many wire transfers as you think. They simply keep a bank account in Europe, for example, in Euros to receive and send money in the Eurozone as needed. They balance the exchange on their books internally in this case, without actually sending funds through the international banking system. Similarly in other parts of the world. (3) These companies are not going to make a wire transfer for every transaction, in any case. They are going to transfer big sums of money to an account abroad to balance things on a longer-term basis (weekly, month, etc.) Then they will make individual payments to service providers out of the overseas account in between these larger, international transfers. For the second part of your question, I think there's probably no way for a new business to get the advantages of scale unless you've got significant capital backing your endeavor that would make it plausible that you'll be transferring in scale. I don't see any reason in principle that the new company could not establish bank accounts abroad and try to execute the plan outlined in #2 above except that it would require some set-up costs to do the proper paperwork in each country, probably to travel, and to initially fund the various accounts.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "250776fdc7608cf2ad194f982553b759", "text": "\"In Europe in most of the countries there is also a thing called ACH. In UK there is a thing called BACS and in other countires there are other things. Essentially every country has what is called a \"\"Low value Net Settlement System\"\" that is used to transfer funds between accounts of different banks. In US there is rounting number, in UK there is a Sort Code, in Indonesia there is a sort code. Essentially a Bank Identifier that is issued by the Governing body within respective countires. Certian identifiers like SWIFT BIC [Bank Identification Code] are Unique across world.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "b23d1bc1dc22e8aef985a8bf65abb967", "text": "\"This is second hand information as I am not a millionaire, but I work with such people everyday and have an understanding of how they handle cash: The wealthy people don't. Simple. Definitely not if they don't have to. Cash is a tool to them that they use only if they get benefit of it being a cash transaction (one of my friends is a re-seller and he gets a 10% discount from suppliers for settling lines using cash). Everything else they place on a line of credit. For people who \"\"dislike\"\" credit cards and pay using ATM or debit cards might actually have a very poor understanding of leverage. I assure you, the wealthy people have a very good understanding of it! Frankly, wealthy people pay less for everything, but they deserve it because of the extreme amount of leverage they have built for themselves. Their APRs are low, their credit limits are insanely high, they have longer billing periods and they get spoiled by credit card vendors all the time. For example, when you buy your groceries at Walmart, you pay at least a 4% markup because that's the standardized cost of processing credit cards. Even if you paid in cash! A wealthy person uses his credit card to pay for the same but earns the same percentage amount in cash back, points and what not. I am sure littleadv placed the car purchase on his credit card for similar reasons! The even more wealthy have their groceries shipped to their houses and if they pay cash I won't be surprised if they actually end up paying much less for fresh (organic) vegetables than what equivalent produce at Walmart would get them! I apologize for not being able to provide citations for these points I make as they are personal observations.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "17e78480112a308574692e1fc00fecfe", "text": "\"While you would probably not use your ATM card to buy a $1M worth mansion, I've heard urban legends about people who bought a house on a credit card. While can't say its reliable, I wouldn't be surprised that some have actual factual basis. I myself had put a car down-payment on my credit card, and had I paid the sticker price, the dealer would definitely have no problem with putting the whole car on the credit card (and my limits would allow it, even for a luxury brand). The instruments are the same. There's nothing special you need to have to pay a million dollars. You just write a lot of zeroes on your check, but you don't need a special check for that. Large amounts of money are transferred electronically (wire-transfers), which is also something that \"\"regular\"\" people do once or twice in their lives. What might be different is the way these purchases are financed. Rich people are not necessarily rich with cash. Most likely, they're rich with equity: own something that's worth a lot. In this case, instead of a mortgage secured by the house, they can take a loan secured by the stocks they own. This way, they don't actually cash out of the investment, yet get cash from its value. It is similarly to what we, regular mortals, do with our equity in primary residence and HELOCs. So it is not at all uncommon that a billionaire will in fact have tons of money owed in loans. Why? Because the billions owned are owned through stock valuation, and the cash used is basically a loan secured by these stocks. It might happen that the stocks securing the loans become worthless, and that will definitely be a problem both to the (now ex-)billionaire and the bank. But until then, they can get cash from their investment without cashing out and without paying taxes. And if they're lucky enough to die before they need to repay the loans - they saved tons on money on taxes.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "10c0f678060e4a75b6b7b5a802c51848", "text": "I was once the personal assistant to two wealthy NYC sisters. They did not pay for anything. For example, if we were riding the subway, I would pay, and be reimbursed by the Company. They had multiple residences and investment properties. Each property was purchased through a separate Limited Liablity Corporation, and paid for by the Company. When they purchased, donated or sold art, it was through their family Foundation. Their income primarily came from a draw of funds from the family estate, although one of them worked as an architect, which provided further income.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "323c75c34ba054d6ba99ed51108702ae", "text": "Right, just like computers are only available to the upper class. In reality, the wealthy would just be the initial market. As their demand causes supply increases/cost innovation, prices will inevitably fall (and philanthropy almost certainly rise), which would make the enhancements available further down the economic ladder, which cycles the process again.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "51ace463ec495857250cc8631b9ee890", "text": "I got that notion from Max Kaiser, his ideas about that are mostly about interest rate apartheid - banks and rich people get money at zero interest, we pay 9, 10, 30%. I think it involves everything from how we are seen in the eyes of the law to assuming risk, etc. We are expected to play by the rules and they are not.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "49dfe3479f965f01e8864a3284d28d6a", "text": "The 'uber' rich because they take chances that others aren't willing to. They also are rich because they make products people like. Take for instance Apple [or whatever smartphone/computer brand your so privileged to own] ,like them or not they make a great product (determined by the market). If the market didn't like it (Microsoft Zune) then it'll fail. As for the risk aspect, starting a business takes a TON of risk, and only after much strife and hardships can a business have potential to reach great heights. You think starting Popeyes's was easy? You think franchising is easy? Absolutely not! You sit there in your privileged high-horse saying the rich should pay because they make something you like and helped to succeed. It's like wanting something for free. Buy phone -&gt; Others buy phone -&gt; Complain about the rich and vote for UBI -&gt; Get extra $ you wouldn't have gotten otherwise-&gt; Spend that extra $ on the next years phone", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f710cf70297ba675d3fe3c1fc9557140", "text": "And rich person is more likely not to choose subpar government services when they can choose something else. Meaning if the were allowed to opt out of this monopoly service provider they would. Meaning the only ones who want government services is those who want someone else to pay for it for them.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4dceaf523ac9a71169632ad3f2e7dde8", "text": "\"Most well-off people have investments which they have held for long periods of time, often of very substantial value such as a large part of a company. They also have influence on legislators and officials through various social contacts, lobbyists, and contributions. They managed to convince these law makers to offer a lower tax on income derived from sales of such investments. The fig leaf covering this arrangement is that it \"\"contributes to the growth of economy by encouraging long-term investment in new enterprises.\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c5b754eb59d20a461ed839fe1d464e59", "text": "The prices we pay for goods and services is set by our level of income because we have a huge choice of price levels from luxury to economy class and DIY. This was true of rent and mortgage payments before the real estate bubble. There is still some choice though from a tiny house or trailer to a mansion. None of these are one set demand decided by someone else as with land value tax. Many people like where they live and want to stay there. Those people create a cross generational community. Land and homes must be affordable and we should have as much freedom about what we do with our homes as possible.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b6046d9a59d22cd2c94acdd6a8042811", "text": "Exactly. People don't seem to realize that a lot of the things they take for granted as being provided by the government were more than adequately provided by private charities until the government stepped in and 'fixed' things...or else they do get it but sweep it under the rug and mumble something about 'its more efficient this way' to justify intruding on the private affairs of others. This is why the founding fathers hated democracy -- the Athenians had no concept of rei publicae.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "94e274d66650337c888a371d404e2d7b", "text": "People just love becoming more well-off than they currently are, and one of the ways they do it is with leverage. Leverage requires credit. That desire is not exclusive to people who are not already well-off. For a well-off person who wants to become more well-off by expanding their real estate ventures, paying cash for property is a terrible way to go about it. The same goes for other types of business or market investment. Credit benefits the well-off even more greatly than it benefits the poor or the middle-class.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4aa71bc5470147597db83be59cdb3e56", "text": "\"The scenario you mention regarding capital gains is pretty much the core of the issue. Here's a run-down from PolitiFact.com that explains it a bit. It's important to focus on it being the tax rate, not the tax amount (which I think you get, but I want to reinforce that for other readers). Basically, most of Buffett's income comes from capital gains and dividends, income from investments he makes with the money he already has. Income earned by buying and selling stocks or from stock dividends is generally taxed at 15 percent, the rate for long-term capital gains and qualified dividends. Buffett also mentioned that some of the \"\"mega-rich\"\" are hedge fund managers \"\"who earn billions from our daily labors but are allowed to classify our income as 'carried interest,' thereby getting a bargain 15 percent tax rate.\"\" We don't know the taxes paid by Buffett's secretary, who was mentioned by Obama but not by Buffett. Buffet's secretary would have to make a high salary, or else typical deductions (such as the child tax credit) would offset taxes owed. Let's say the secretary is a particularly well-compensated executive assistant, making adjusted income more than $83,600 in income. (Yes, that sounds like a lot to us, too, but remember: We're talking about the secretary to one of the richest people in the world.) In that case, marginal tax rates of 28 percent would apply. Then, there would be payroll taxes of 6.25 percent on the first $106,800, money that goes to Social Security, and another 1.45 percent on all income, which goes to Medicare. The secretary’s overall tax rate would be lower than 28 percent, since not all the income would be taxed at that rate, only the income above $83,600. Buffett, meanwhile, would pay very little, if anything, in payroll taxes. In the New York Times op-ed, Buffett said he paid 17.4 percent in taxes. Thinking of the secretary, it gets a little complicated, given how the tax brackets work, but basically, people who make between $100,000 and $200,000 are paying around 20 percent in federal taxes, including payroll and income taxes, according to an analysis from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. So in this case, the secretary's rate is higher because so much of Buffett's income comes from investments and is taxed at the lower capital gains rate. Here's Buffet's original Op-Ed in the NYT for those of you that aren't familiar.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "62e95a628269a92d9a6eb88cf35f5c91", "text": "\"Partly I suspect this is selection bias. You say you see so many luxury cars go by. But if you're looking for them, you're going to notice them. Have you calculated the actual percentage? Do they make up 50% of the cars that pass a specific point in a specific period of time? Or just 10% if you really counted? You say you live in Baltimore county, Maryland. That's a relatively wealthy area, so I'd expect the percentage of luxury cars to be higher than the national average. You'd likely see considerably fewer in the backwoods of Mississippi. That said, some people who own luxury cars can't really afford them. I'm reminded of a wonderful TV commercial I saw recently where a man is showing off all his material goods, he talks about his big house, and his swimming pool, and his fancy car, with a big smile on his face, standing tall, and generally looking proud and happy. And then he says, \"\"How do I do it?\"\" And suddenly his expression changes to complete despair, he slumps down, and says, \"\"I'm in debt up to my eyeballs.\"\" It turns out to be a commercial for a debt-counseling service. Some people put very high value on owning a fancy car and are willing to sacrifice on other things. If having a big fancy car is more important to you then, say, having a nice house or the latest computer or a big screen TV or dining out more often or going on more expensive vacations or whatever you have to give up to get the car, well, that's your decision. Personally I don't care much about a fancy car, I just want something that gets me where I want to go. And I've always figured that with an expensive car, you have to constantly worry about getting in an accident and damaging or destroying it. If you put your money into a big fancy house, at least houses rarely collide with each other. Personally, I make a nice income too. And I have a $500/month mortgage and zero car payment because I drive a 2003 pickup that I bought with cash. But I have two kids in college and I'm trying to get them through with no debt, that's where all my money is going.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "16cae3c6ef9c86ec505e60790d2ac9ac", "text": "The rich pay more in taxes. It would be hard to cut taxes in a way that *didnt* help the rich. I'm more concerned with what it does for the middle and lower classes. I don't care that much if it helps the rich. EDIT: Okay, so let's say you give the top third of the population (by income) a 1% income tax cut. The middle third got a 5% cut, and the bottom third got a 10% cut. In dollar value, the rich are still getting a larger cut, simply by virtue of how much they pay in taxes. Someone made a point about property tax. Speaking very generally, poor people rent and rich people own. So a property tax inherently benefits the wealthy, because they own more property. Certainly any kind of corporate or capital gains cut would benefit the wealthy, since they own the corporations and are more heavily invested. Even a sales tax cut would benefit the wealthy more than the non-wealthy, simply because they spend more money. But what frustrates me is how hung up people get on the fact that something is good for the wealthy, (such as with the headline of OPs article) as if we should actively try to avoid helping anyone rich. As I stated above, I don't care that it helps the rich, as long as it's helping the rest of us, too. And if the rich are getting a bigger benefit than I am by virtue of being rich, I'm not bothered, because I can do math.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bb309bf8d35c9118d1a2dc3649ee6875", "text": "Those billionaires are often billionaires because they make it their job to take my hard earned money, which I give them willingly, and make it worth more than inflation in fifty years so that I can retire with dignity, comfort and peace. If you tax the hell out of that then people are either not going to do it, or it will be prohibitively expensive to do so, meaning that the 401(K) system makes less money. Also, wtf did the rich people do to deserve to be punished?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e3feabf3c5377f19e11874057aade2f8", "text": "\"This article is also light on sources. It overstates inherited wealth. People who work with rich people know the saying \"\"shirtsleeve to shirtsleeve in three generations\"\". There is a proclivity of rich descendants to squander their fortune, which totally negates a majority of this article. In sum, this article and news source insists on itself\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "51d4ff1cf3835ae0b7b0761fa4fe207b", "text": "First of all, it's not the 1% that run things. It is more like the 0.1%. They run things because they run the government, not because they cannot be challenged in the market. We should expect the courts to be less corruptible because their proceedings take place in public, whereas the Executive bureaucracy and most of the Congressional machinations occur behind closed doors. Deals are made that we have no knowledge of. That is where the 0.1% operates. They are as afraid of the light of day as vampires. There is usually a cycle of wealth that lasts three or four generations unless that cycle is interrupted by collusion with the government. Europe's rich stayed rich because they became the government. Their thefts were sanctified by making them nobility and protecting them with the state. Look at the makeup of Obama's inner circle. It is the banking nobility. Those banks and banksters would all be broke now if they had not harnessed the government to steal from thee and me to give to them. Small government that debates everything in the open will not protect the very rich. Without government protection their wealth will return to the general pool in three generations.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "03d36bcfc0701893351e08d872295887", "text": "Some good answers already, but let me add a TL:DR version. Brokers work like a special type of bank account where you can deposit or withdraw money. The major difference is that they also give you the ability to buy/sell investments with the money in your account which you can do by either calling them or using their website. Important: Many investments you will make through a broker(e.g. stocks) are not insured against losing value like the money in your bank account.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "87f3299669175f2ba326371f00e92c4a", "text": "\"This is what is called \"\"weasel words\"\". They're trying to put some authority into their ad, but since they don't have any - they're putting meaningless words that sound important. Monetary policy is the state/central bank policy to control the supply of the available currency. Cannot think of a way to connect it to private investments.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8a0657524e9d35d91e45059d307b5966", "text": "\"I'm not sure what is traditionally meant by \"\"Swiss-style monetary policy\"\" but lately it has meant the same thing as US monetary policy, or Japanese monetary policy, or Euro monetary policy: PRINT. Look how many Swiss Francs it takes to buy a currency that cannot be printed: I'm not sure why they would be touting \"\"Swiss-style monetary policy\"\". That hasn't been too stellar lately.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "045a95698737bb16498d42194ede6411", "text": "I am just a C student with no hope for grad school, so you are going to have to walk me through this... The ECB (until recently), Japan, and the Swiss have been running QE programs equal to that of the Fed's in 2009 for the last couple of years. That's an extraordinary amount of money being created... what's more, is that the Swiss are even buying shitloads of American equities with it. Perhaps my understanding of M2 is flawed, but how would the Swiss national bank buying $63B in equities change M2? It's not like the fed is printing the money specifically for the transaction. The amount of QE being pumped into a healthy economy over the last couple years should be concerning, if only because it's unprecedented, especially since some of it is being directly invested into equities. I don't think there is a viable argument that can truthfully say that it isn't a pretty large variable in the market today.... but I could be wrong. Also, I've read enough, and heard enough, on how the inflation rate is measured to cultivate a healthy skepticism for the entire metric. The way they choose baskets, while obviously the best possible, is not something that lends itself to precision. Please be kind to my grammar.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b7577e9124a4a8752111a7e91e5033a0", "text": "The idea behind this move is to avoid or mitigate long-term deflationary pressure and to boost the competitiveness of Swiss exporters. This is primarily a Swiss-based initiative that does not appear likely to have a major impact on the broader Eurozone. However, some pressure will be felt by other currencies as investors look to purchase - ie. this is not a great scenario for other countries wanting to keep their currencies weak. In terms of personal wealth - if you hold Swiss f then you are impacted. However, 1.2 is still very strong (most analysts cite 1.3 as more realistic) so there seems little need for a reaction of any kind at the personal level at this time, although diversity - as ever - is good. It should also be noted that changing the peg is a possibility, and that the 1.3 does seem to be the more realistic level. If you hold large amounts of Swiss f then this might cause you to look at your forex holdings. For the man in the street, probably not an issue.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "39430e9e2b7e42a65b94a9ad0d7d55bf", "text": "\"Correct! But this is only true when a central bank is involved. So if there's a single institution that has a territorial monopoly on the production of money (and competing currencies aren't allowed via \"\"legal tender laws\"\"), then the debt-based money system OP describes isn't actually the system being used. That's the problem with his post: he's trying to make it seem like our current system of fiat currencies is somehow natural or emergent. It's not. What we have now is the result of a legal monopoly.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c4d799f952082cf6768813a8df4b3127", "text": "The Swiss franc has appreciated quite a bit recently against the Euro as the European Central Bank (ECB) continues to print money to buy government bonds issues by Greek, Portugal, Spain and now Italy. Some euro holders have flocked to the Swiss franc in an effort to preserve the savings from the massive Euro money printing. This has increased the value of the Swiss franc. In response, the Swiss National Bank (SNB) has tried to intervene multiple times in the currency market to keep the value of the Swiss franc low. It does this by printing Swiss francs and using the newly printed francs to buy Euros. The SNB interventions have failed to suppress the Swiss franc and its value has continued to rise. The SNB has finally said they will print whatever it takes to maintain a desired peg to the Euro. This had the desired effect of driving down the value of the franc. Which effect will this have long term for the euro zone? It is now clear that all major central bankers are in a currency devaluation war in which they are all trying to outprint each other. The SNB was the last central bank to join the printing party. I think this will lead to major inflation in all currencies as we have not seen the end of money printing. Will this worsen the European financial crisis or is this not an important factor? I'm not sure this will have much affect on the ongoing European crisis since most of the European government debt is in euros. Should this announcement trigger any actions from common European people concerning their wealth? If a European is concerned with preserving their wealth I would think they would begin to start diverting some of their savings into a harder currency. Europeans have experienced rapidly depreciating currencies more than people on any other continent. I would think they would be the most experienced at preserving wealth from central bank shenanigans.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f2bb673aed58d4f4d514d8902cd390a0", "text": "It matters to taxpayers and this country because the Federal Reserve's obligations are guaranteed by them. Taxpayers don't support fully covering Wall Street's bad bets from the Financial Crisis, which is precisely what QE and current monetary policy are aimed at doing.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5e05f4ca993aa308520b5e5ce2655662", "text": "\"&gt; AMERICA is growing, Western Europe is stagnant, China and most of East Asia is expanding relatively quickly So staring into the face of evidence from his own intro context that generally the more active fiscal intervention since the GFC, the better economies have fared, the author proceeds to prognosticate about impending doom for the Chinese if they don't conclusively switch &amp; stick to austerity and ignore growth to focus on hidden inflation monsters. For the US somehow everything comes down to fed monetary policy, despite the fact that 4 years of the fed's alphabet soup programs without any fiscal assistance from congress hasn't kicked the US back into preferred growth and GDP is seeming to slow back down toward recession/stagnation. And finally the eurozone is apparently most plagued by \"\"overblown public debt\"\" and government spending somehow \"\"crowding out\"\" investment that just wishes it had the chance to invest if those pesky profligate politicians would get out of the way, and maybe the countries should fork over their economic sovereignty to the ECB so they can be structurally reformed (bloodletting/grave robbing). Just my opinion, this whole article seems like shitty oldschool/backward economic views coming out of academic economics, likely angling to be a ['very serious person' in ECB bureaucratic/advisory politics](http://www.geopolitical-info.com/en/expert/professor-enrico-colombatto). The lack of being able to comprehend &amp; adjust to real world results is just sad.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0e7739a1c040d7e49a3b2af7e5bfb609", "text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-fed-policy-idUSKBN1A80XA) reduced by 87%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; The Fed led the way in tightening monetary policy as the global economy recovered from the 2008 recession but must now determine how plans by other central banks&amp;#039; plans may affect their own policy. &gt; While a stronger European economy has been welcomed by the Fed, lessening risks to the global economy, a move by major central banks to all tighten monetary policy simultaneously has not been seen for a decade. &gt; When Fed policymakers meet on July 25-26 they will need to decide a start date for reducing their bond holdings or leave more time to evaluate what Fed Governor Lael Brainard recently cited as a possible &amp;quot;Turning point&amp;quot; in global monetary policy that may affect economic growth. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6peule/federal_reserve_now_faces_prospect_of_global/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~174973 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*: **Fed**^#1 **rate**^#2 **policy**^#3 **month**^#4 **bond**^#5\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cb3bbbf3c817b7a173fbd0fcbf065452", "text": "Your question contains two different concepts: fractional reserve banking and debt-based money. When thinking of these two things I think it is important to analyze these items separately before trying to understand how the whole system works. Fractional Reserve Banking As others have pointed out fractional reserve banking is not a ponzi scheme. It can be fraudulent, however. If a bank tells all its depositors that they can withdrawal their money at any time (i.e. on demand) and the bank then proceeds to loan out some portion of the depositors' money then the bank has committed fraud since there is no way they could honor the depositors' requests for their money if many of them came for their money at one time. This is true regardless of what type of money is deposited - dollars, gold, etc.. This is how most modern banks operate. Debt-based money Historically, the Fed would introduce new money by buying US Treasuries. This means Federal Reserve Notes (FRN) are backed by US Treasuries. I agree that this seems strange. Does this mean if I take my FRNs to the Fed I could redeem them for US Treasuries? But US Treasuries are promises to pay FRNs in the future. This makes my head hurt. Reminds me of the definition for recursion: see recursion. Here is an experiment. What if we wanted to recreate FRNs today and none existed? The US government would offer a note to pay 100 FRNs in one year and pay 5% interest on the note. The Fed would print up its first 100 FRNs to buy the note from the US government. The US government would spend the FRNs. The first 100 FRNs have now entered into circulation. At the end of the note's term the Fed should have 105 FRNs since the government agreed to pay 5% interest on the note. But how is the US government going to pay the interest and principal on the note when only 100 FRNs exist? I think this is the central point to your question. I can come up with only two answers: 1) the Fed must purchase some assets that are not debt based 2) the US government must continue to issue debt that is purchased by newly printed FRNs in order to pay back older debt and interest. This is a ponzi scheme. The record debt levels seem to indicate the ponzi scheme option was chosen.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c4256692af1f36bc4422ea1aa0c48647", "text": "So much spin with you. Kenyes wrote explicitly about deficit spending, and the repayment of those deficits. The denomination of the currency, floating or otherwise, is besides the point. Again, you just want to model away the burden and risk of debt. It's never worked, and it never will.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d8d1a7ed650bccb30e84e1f254b57628", "text": "\"Currencies that are pegged or fixed require that foreign currencies are held by the central issuer at a proportional amount. This is analogous to having a portfolio of currencies that the central bank issues shares from - in the form of its own currency. We will continue with this analogy, if the central bank says these \"\"shares\"\" are worth $1, but the underlying components of the portfolio are worth $0.80 and decreasing, then it is expensive for the central bank to maintain its peg, and eventually they will have to disregard the peg as people start questioning the central bank's solvency. (People will know the $1 they hold is not really worth what the central bank says it is, because of the price changes people experience in buying goods and services, especially when it comes to imports. Shadow economies will also trade using a currency more reflective of labor, which happens no matter what the government's punishments are for doing so). Swiss National Bank (central bank) did this in early 2015, as it experienced volatility in the Euro which it had previously been trying to keep it's currency pegged to. It became too expensive for it to keep this peg on its own. The central bank can devalue its currency by adjusting the proportions of the reserve, such as selling a lot of foreign currency X, buying more of currency Y. They can and do take losses doing this. (Swiss National Bank is maintaining a large loss) They can also flood their economy with more of their currency, diluting the value of each individual 1 dollar equivalent. This is done by issuing bonds or monetizing goods and services from the private sector in exchange for bonds. People colloquially call this \"\"printing money\"\" but it is a misnomer in this day and age where printers are not relevant tools. The good and service goes onto the central bank's balance book, and the company/entity that provided the service now has a bond on its book which can be immediately sold to someone else for cash (another reading is that the bond is as good as cash). The bond didn't previously exist until the central bank said it did, and central banks can infinitely exchange goods and services for bonds. Bond monetization (also called Quantitative Easing) is practiced by the Federal Reserve in the United States, Bank of Japan, European Central Bank and now the Central Bank of the Republic of China\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "68307d5be9ffcdcde08545453139e73a", "text": "\"Buying physical gold: bad idea; you take on liquidity risk. Putting all your money in a German bank account: bad idea; you still do not escape Euro risk. Putting all your money in USD: bad idea; we have terrible, terrible fiscal problems here at home and they're invisible right now because we're in an election year. The only artificially \"\"cheap\"\" thing that is well-managed in your part of the world is the Swiss Franc (CHF). They push it down artificially, but no government has the power to fight a market forever. They'll eventually run out of options and have to let the CHF rise in value.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bab7bb817344b8591a92849a473ed6a7", "text": "I beg to differ: Israel has an incredibly well managed central bank, and the usury market is wonderfully competitive. It's a shame Stanley Fischer has retired. His management is the case study in central bank management. Rates are low because inflation is low. The nominal rate is irrelevant to return because a 2% nominal return with 1% inflation is superior to a 5% nominal return with 9% inflation. A well-funded budget is the best first step, so now a tweak is necessary: excess capital beyond budgeting should be moved quickly to internationally diversified equities after funding, discounted and adjusted, longer term budgets. Credit will not pay the rate necessary for long term investment. Higher variance is the price to pay for higher returns.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "629a1e69f2804a85212260c726c6c200", "text": "This is a good point. The problem is that we still use the central bank and interest rates to try to control the economy. This is the part that has failed. I would suggest adjusting government spending based on the economic situation (down in good times, up in bad times). I do believe this would prevent recessions but it has never been tried. only in desperate times like the japanese recession and our great depression does this get tried and in both times has been effective. This is the difference between monetary and fiscal policy.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6cd544ba48b9438597eb4281ed7c0779", "text": "\"Yes sir, I'm working on compiling your \"\"precise evidence,\"\" and I'll have it printed and bound for you on the double. In the meantime, you can look here as a starting point and try to find the part where the Fed has allowed interest rates to adjust freely, and maybe you can learn why rates are artificial: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_responses_to_the_subprime_crisis As for \"\"cahoots\"\" and independent banks and whatever other off-topic nonsense you're babbling about, there was nothing said about cahoots or independent banks. The interest rates paid for and to US banks are affected by the monetary policy of the Fed. There is no collusion, or \"\"cahoots,\"\" required for them to follow a common policy of artificially-low interest rates, which was the point of the earlier post.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "24cf9bf194cce0172e56f99da529f5bd", "text": "They will not open an account if you come in wanting to open an account for a third party. Your sister will have to do it herself. Assuming she has a SSN and credit history to verify her identity, she'll easily be able to do it online, and use whatever address she wants to send mail to (she can have separate mailing and residence addresses). There are also Israeli institutions who provide investment accounts to Israelis with ability to trade in the US. That might be easier for her than having an account in the US and filing tax returns in Israel every year. Unless she evades taxes in Israel, that is...", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "0a20f2b828717286cfbfbb1a44c7c8dd", "text": "My company did not have income of $1000 and have a $500 expense Why not? Your company received $1000 from you, and based on its agreement with the other company - transferred out half of it. How does it not translate to having $1000 income and $500 expense? When I run a report I want to see that my business has $500 of income not $1000 with a $500 expense You can write in your reports whatever you want, but if you want to see the real picture, then that is exactly what you should be expecting. That said, transferring money from yourself to your company is generally not considered income. You can have it booked as owner's equity, or a owner's loan if the company is required to repay. Unless you're paying to your company for some services provided or assets transferred, that is.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "41372fce8481716fd887860e6d3e94db", "text": "The three places you want to focus on are the income statement, the balance sheet, and cash flow statement. The standard measure for multiple of income is the P/E or price earnings ratio For the balance sheet, the debt to equity or debt to capital (debt+equity) ratio. For cash generation, price to cash flow, or price to free cash flow. (The lower the better, all other things being equal, for all three ratios.)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ec5ecd031c5e4778c6e9e73e08aae470", "text": "Since you're not loaning the company the money, the correct category is Equity. It's not an income type account, rather it represents the balance of Assets - Liabilities = Owner's Equity So you'd put down £100 as the starting balance of Owner's Equity, and then a Cash Balance of £100 in a cash account.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "390a360d0bb3922167f3e81f7d5d6c75", "text": "\"My wife and I have close to equal incomes, and are not young. What we have is this: Some people would classify our system as a bit draconian as we each have \"\"allowance\"\"; however, it makes sure spending does not get out of wack and we work together to meet our goals.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "eb83cd6d3176913addf1ddabb97b7f53", "text": "\"My wife and I maintain seperate accounts. We have the bills split between us so that certain bills are paid by one of us, and other bills by the other. This is not a perfect 50/50 split as we don't make the same amount of money, but comparable enough that neither feels like they're doing all the bills alone. Our investments are similar. That means we each have a pool of money that we can spend on toys or entertainment as we see fit without overspending. Once my bills are paid and my savings are paid for the month, if I want to go buy some DVDs and my wife wants to buy a new lens for the camera, we don't have to agree. We just use our own money and do it. For us that's led to minimal friction or arguments over what to spend money on, simply because we aren't using the same pool. Getting it work requires getting the split right AND having the mindset that the other person is just as entitled to spend their share of the money as you are to spend yours. It really helps to eliminate issues where she spent money that I expected to be able to spend before I could, which can happen in a joint account. (We have no joint accounts, only things like the mortgage are in both our names.) I've been told by more then one person that how we're doing it is \"\"wrong\"\", but it works a lot better for us then trying to combine finances ever did. I think it also helps that we're younger, and this seems far less common amongst older couples.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0f8ff70696e06a1a1df44938f4de14eb", "text": "If you have access, factset and bloomberg have this. However, these aren't standardized due to non-existent reporting regulations, therefore each company may choose to categorize regions differently. This makes it difficult to work with a large universe, and you'll probably end up doing a large portion manually anyways.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ed757364d1d17b0da0f0cf424818d2b0", "text": "Yea, so they mention household and income....Am I supposed to count both my spouse income and my own? Because if that's true...then I'm part of the 1% at 27, yet it sure as shit doesn't feel like it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c1de1971a83164f2f91c1ca34eb3d445", "text": "\"Selling an asset is not earning income. You are basically moving value from one asset (the laptop) to another (your bank account.) So you reduce the equity that is \"\"value of all my electronics\"\" and you increase the asset that is your bank account. In your case, you never entered the laptop in some category called \"\"value of all my electronics\"\" so you don't have that to make a double-entry against. The temptation is high to call it income as a result. Depending on the reason for all this double-entry book-keeping for personal finances, that may be fine. Or, you can create a category for balancing and use that, and realize the (negative) value of that account doesn't mean much.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8e67b6911d14a79d53b0b47b4fdd2ac1", "text": "\"Accounts track value: at any given time, a given account will have a given value. The type of account indicates what the value represents. Roughly: On a balance sheet (a listing of accounts and their values at a given point in time), there is typically only one equity account, representing net worth, I don't know much about GNUCash, though. Income and expenses accounts do not go on the balance sheet, but to find out more, either someone else or the GNUCash manual will have to describe how they work in detail. Equity is more similar to a liability than to assets. The equation Assets = Equity + Liabilities should always hold; you can think of assets as being \"\"what my stuff is worth\"\" and equity and liabilities together as being \"\"who owns it.\"\" The part other people own is liability, and the part you own is equity. See balance sheet, accounting equation, and double-entry bookkeeping for more information. (A corporate balance sheet might actually have more than one equity entry. The purpose of the breakdown is to show how much of their net worth came from investors and how much was earned. That's only relevant if you're trying to assess how a company has performed to date; it's not important for a family's finances.)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f58f8afc6afbfa9998c18fedb9aa1367", "text": "I agree with Option 3 from the accepted answer (His/Hers/Joint), but with one caveat (that my wife and I are finding out). Once you have children, if your income is in the mid-range where you are not paycheck to paycheck, but are not floating in excess money either (ie, you can have a vacation, but you have to plan for it and save up for a few months to do so), the child-relative expenses begin to be a huge factor in your overall budget, such that (particularly if one partner does more of the child-related buying) it can be hard to really keep up the 3 account separation, because those child-related expenses may end up being all of one earner's paycheck. We originally did the 3 way split, where we took rent, car, and utilities from joint (ie, each transferred a reasonable portion to the joint account to cover), and just bought groceries each occasionally such that it was generally a reasonable split (as we both shopped for groceries and both earned close enough to each other that it worked out). But once we had kids, it ended up being very different, and we eventually had to more properly budget all of our funds as if they were basically joint funds. While we still do have separate accounts (and, largely, separate credit cards/etc., except for one joint card), it's almost pro forma now due to the kids.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "983e84eb31d74702554938415b8ccc43", "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.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7455319de0de59050f5b59e53c48bbe1", "text": "\"I am not a lawyer nor a tax accountant, so if such chimes in here I'll gladly defer. But my understanding is: If you're romantically involved and living together you're considered a \"\"household\"\" and thus your finances are deemed shared for tax purposes. Any money your partner gives you toward paying the bills is not considered \"\"rent\"\" but \"\"her contribution to household expenses\"\". (I don't know the genders but I'll call your partner \"\"her\"\" for convenience.) This is not income and is not taxed. On the off chance that the IRS actually investigated your arrangement, don't call any money she gives you \"\"rent\"\": call it \"\"her contribution to living expenses\"\". If you were two (or more) random people sharing a condo purely for economic reasons, i.e. you are not a family in any sense but each of you would have trouble affording a place on your own, it's common for all the room mates to share the rent or mortgage, utilities, etc, but for one person to collect all the money and write one check to the landlord, etc. Tax law does not see this as the person who writes the check collecting rent from the others, it's just a book-keeping convenience, and so there is no taxable transaction. (Of course the landlord owes taxes on the rental income, but that's not your problem.) In that case it likely would be different if one person outright owned the place and really was charging the others rent. But then he could claim deductions for all the expenses of maintaining it, including depreciation, so if it really was a case of room mates sharing expenses, the taxable income would likely be just about zero anyway. So short answer: If you really are a \"\"couple\"\", there are no taxable transactions here. If the IRS should actually question it, don't refer to it as \"\"collecting rent\"\" or any other words that imply this is a business arrangement. Describe it as a couple sharing expenses. (People sometimes have created tax problems for themselves by their choice of words in an audit.) But the chance that you would ever be audited over something like this is probably remote. I suppose that if at some point you break up, but you continue to live together for financial reasons (or whatever reasons), that could transform this into a business relationship and that would change my answer.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1d40b527cb773fb000584515b7841983", "text": "Echoing Justkt, different approaches will work for different couples. It also depends on your background, life experience, age, maturity.... Irrespective of the structure, any agreement must be based on a thorough understanding of the mechanism by which responsibility and accountability is apportioned. As in any financial relationship, when money is plentiful and covers all ends, then conflict hardly ever arises. Problems only turn up when money vanishes. Business contracts are written with a view to such conflicts and agreements within a marriage must be equatable and based on a shared understanding. So, don't worry too much about the structure. Think about thinkgs like the following: In other words, given that income between spouses is likely to be unbalanced, how do you manage this within a caring relationship so that neither feels like a charity case, a social worker, or dependent? There will not be one clear answer except that open and honest discussion on an ongoing bases can only serve to strengthen your relationship.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b2c2a2438b925a7ca203cf52bfabeaf3", "text": "You really shouldn't be using class tracking to keep business and personal operations separate. I'm pretty sure the IRS and courts frown upon this, and you're probably risking losing any limited liability you may have. And for keeping separate parts of the business separate, like say stores in a franchise, one approach would be subaccounts. Messy, I'm sure.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6ba7e9cc2946fa22d42e2c0a8d0ac1c4", "text": "I would just take $2000 and multiply by your marginal tax rate, weight that between the 5 other people according to their share of the prize money and ask them to give you that. From your question it seems like you all have a good working relationship, I'm sure the other partners would agree to that. I think it's the simplest solution that is also fair and equitable. Basically, you pay the tax on 2000 and they pay you back for their share of the tax. Much easier than trying to pass it through your tax return for 5 separate people for a minimal amount of $'s. In hindsight, the best way to do it would have been to 1099 the person with the lowest marginal tax rate for the year to minimize the total tax paid on the 2000. Probably only would've been a few dollars difference but still the most efficient way to do it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "beea3f671766c0cef4427097bdc05788", "text": "Funds earned and spent before opening a dedicated business account should be classified according to their origination. For example, if your business received income, where did that money go? If you took the money personally, it would be considered either a 'distribution' or a 'loan' to you. It is up to you which of the two options you choose. On the flip side, if your business had an expense that you paid personally, that would be considered either a 'contribution of capital' or a 'loan' from you. If you choose to record these transactions as loans, you can offset them together, so you don't need two separate accounts, loan to you and loan from you. When the bank account was opened, the initial deposit came from where? If it came from your personal funds, then it is either a 'contribution of capital' or a 'loan' from you. From the sound of your question, you deposited what remained after the preceding income/expenses. This would, in effect, return the 'loan' account back to zero, if choosing that route. The above would also be how to record any expenses you may pay personally for the business (if any) in the future. Because these transactions were not through a dedicated business bank account, you can't record them in Quickbooks as checks and deposits. Instead, you can use Journal Entries. For any income received, you would debit your capital/loan account and credit your income account. For any expenses, you would debit the appropriate expense account and credit your distribution/loan account. Also, if setting up a loan account, you should choose either Current Asset or Current Liability type. The capital contribution and distribution account should be Equity type. Hope this helps!", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "865cc244d9602dce3a6c4e4f1b6bffbc", "text": "If they're hiding their profits from the government, what makes you think they wouldn't hide their profits from their shareholders?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b81f264b75ed4b2f443dd090e38ece66", "text": "Every listed company needs to maintain book of accounts, when you are investing in companies you would have to look at what is stated in the books and along with other info decide to invest in it.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "2c0ae24ba33f029d528764a03af25505", "text": "Yep, but it you didn't answer my question (edit: I know it was phrased as a question, but I do know youre supposed to model changes in cash). When bankers calculate all three approaches, how do they compare them? From what I see, the conclusion of each approach gives us: * Public Company Approach: Enterprise Value * Transaction Approach: Enterprise Value * Discounted Cash Flow Approach: Enterprise Value + Minimum Level of Operating Cash Does an investment banker subtract out that minimum level of operating cash at the end of the calculation to get to a value that he can then compare?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "eec3004938b5e6ba305d83947f6216ce", "text": "I think it's a bad idea. You are taking a large amount of cash and changing it into an investment that is not liquid - if you need the money, it is expensive to get it back.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "542c6fa0b2b840983295e6ed8c709c4e", "text": "It doesn't matter which way you use. As long as your comfortable with the overall level of risk/reward in your portfolio, that's what matters. (Though I will say that there are more investment vehicles than stocks, bonds, and cash that are worth considering.)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "88d77a3dd754aefdfb72b4a009b8c5e4", "text": "\"Started to post this as a comment, but I think it's actually a legitimate answer: Running a rental property is neither speculation nor investment, but a business, just as if you were renting cars or tools or anything else. That puts it in an entirely different category. The property may gain or lose value, but you don't know which or how much until you're ready to terminate the business... so, like your own house, it really isn't a liquid asset; it's closer to being inventory. Meanwhile, like inventory, you need to \"\"restock\"\" it on a fairly regular basis by maintaining it, finding tenants, and so on. And how much it returns depends strongly on how much effort you put into it in terms of selecting the right location and product in the first place, and in how you market yourself against all the other businesses offering near-equivalent product, and how you differentiate the product, and so on. I think approaching it from that angle -- deciding whether you really want to be a business owner or keep all your money in more abstract investments, then deciding what businesses are interesting to you and running the numbers to see what they're likely to return as income, THEN making up your mind whether real estate is the winner from that group -- is likely to produce better decisions. Among other things, it helps you remember to focus on ALL the costs of the business. When doing the math, don't forget that income from the business is taxed at income rates, not investment rates. And don't forget that you're making a bet on the future of that neighborhood as well as the future of that house; changes in demographics or housing stock or business climate could all affect what rents you can charge as well as the value of the property, and not necessarily in the same direction. It may absolutely be the right place to put some of your money. It may not. Explore all the possible outcomes before making the bet, and decide whether you're willing to do the work needed to influence which ones are more likely.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "236c44110041e09e7184b4b49359385e", "text": "\"Morningstar's definition of cash includes \"\"cash equivalents (fixed-income securities with a maturity of one year or less)\"\". So I'm guessing 81% of its holdings are short-term enough to fall into this category.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2328833836397e7b0dd33404beb1c97f", "text": "You're correct in your implied point: Selling a cash secured put has less risk (in terms of both volatility and maximum loss) than buying the security outright. However, many brokerages don't allow cash-secured put writing in IRA accounts. There are three reasons this tends to be the case:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b95e7286d3620036ce1d7a554eb8d328", "text": "Well, it really doesn't make sense to pay for either in cash. For these purchases, unless you're super wealthy, you won't be paying it in full. If you were to pay in full, then I don't see any practical point to withdraw that money in cash.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1749b87a6b63cb5a2c23d27a3d647519", "text": "\"I'm in the US, so there may be idiosyncrasies with UK taxes that I'm not familiar with, but here's how I've always treated stock I get as compensation. Suppose the vested shares are worth X. If I had X in cash, would I buy my company's stock as an investment? Usually the answer is no, not because I think the stock will tank, but because there's better things I can do with that cash (pay off debt, unfortunately). Therefore I sell the shares and use the cash for something else. You have stock options. So suppose the stock value is X but you can buy it for Y. You can either: Therefore, the math is the same. If you had X in cash, would you buy your company's stock as an investment? If so, then option 2 is best, because you can get X in stock for a lower cost. (Option 3 might be better if the gain on the stock will be taxed higher, but they're pretty much equivalent if there's no chance that the stock will drop below Y) If not, then option 4 is best since you will likely get more than X-Y from selling the options that by exercising them and selling the stock (since options have time value). If option 4 is not a possibility, then option 1 is best - you pocket X-Y as \"\"income\"\" and invest it however you see fit.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "25bba446bab6025f3ba5a43c75c5eea3", "text": "In general, investors with a long period of time until they would need to withdraw the cash are best off holding mostly equities. While the dividends that equities would return are less than the interest you would get in peer-to-peer lending, over long periods of time not only do you get the dividends from equity investment but the value of the stock will grow faster than interest on loans. The higher returns from stocks, however, comes with more risk of big downturns. Many people pull their investments out of stocks right after crashes which really hurts their long term returns. So, in order to get the benefit of investing in stocks you need to be strong enough to continue to hold the stocks through the crash and into the recovery. As for which stocks to invest in, generally it is best to invest in low-fee index funds/etfs where you own a broad collection of stocks so that if (when) any one stock goes bust that your portfolio does not take much damage. Try to own both international and domestic stocks to get good diversification. The consensus recommends adding just a little bit of REITs and bonds to your investments, but for someone at 25 it might not be worth it yet. Warren Buffett had some good thoughts on index investing.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8d47624bf870dbd7329aeee3c6afc574", "text": "What about in the case of a company with unexpectedly low cash (and therefore an inability to easily pay out dividends) but with a surplus of inventory? Obviously the investors should receive some premium for that, because I think anyone would prefer cash, but there are certainly extreme circumstances where it might be appropriate.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7e6a30f5616e94418f406aebfface37b", "text": "Have you looked into GnuCash? It lets you track your stock purchases, and grabs price updates. It's designed for double-entry accounting, but I think it could fit your use case.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "90ed32b56190138860378694d266d676", "text": "\"Finance is ALL about obscure theoretical points. This one actually isn't even that obscure, kind of like a big gaping whole that nobody addresses. So to address your \"\"minimum cash\"\" level point. That's what I'm working towards. Check this: So if you are selling your company, and all of the potential buyers are public companies, you would adjust your working capital balances in your model to match the public company market benchmark (ie: days payable outstanding, days receivable outstanding). This would be some sort of \"\"added value\"\" that a public company would bring to the mix. You should do the same for cash. You would benchmark what level of cash the comparable public companies hold (possibly as a % of revenue?), and apply that as the level of operating cash. You're counter argument would be that some firms may choose to hold on to excess levels of cash for a period of time (Apple), skewing \"\"minimum cash levels\"\" upward. That's true, but over a period of time, investors would either (1). demand the excess cash back or (2) investors would sell shares because the company is not earning a sufficient return on equity. My second point is half baked and not fully thought through but it goes along with the idea that a company will dividend out excess cash if it cannot reach the hurdle rate demanded by investors. Thank you for continuing the conversation with me, I think you're the only one that gets it.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "50f0f55d05c9ca3afe2902f82d83e655", "text": "You can't have even a hundred dollars without it being invested somewhere. If it's cash, you're invested in some nation state's currency. If that currency is USD, you have lost about 6% so far this year. But what if you were in the stock market? It's been doing pretty well, no? Thing is, American stocks are priced in American dollars. You have to put those variables together to see what a stock has really been doing.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f71e16876c49a2516f62da64a0d1f7c0", "text": "\"It's worth pointing out that most \"\"cash\"\" deals are actually debt financed, at least in part. A quick review of the 8K tells us they plan on debt financing the entire transaction with some senior notes and not use any of the 15B on their BS. This is fairly typical these days because debt is cheaper then the foregone interest on cash.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "538fe0fb7780d4da227f8ac29f58e5f1", "text": "\"For any sort of investment you need to understand your risks first. If you're going to put money into the stock or bond market I would get a hold of Graham's \"\"The Intelligent Investor\"\" first, or any other solid value investing book, and educate yourself on what the risks are. I can't speak about real estate investing but I am sure there are plenty of books describing risks and benefits of that as well. I could see inflation/deflation having an effect there but I think the biggest impact on the landlord front is quality of life in the area you are renting and the quality of the tenant you can get. One crazy tenant and you will be driven mad yourself. As for starting a business, one thing I would like to say is that money does not automatically make money. The business should be driven by a product or service that you can provide first, and the backing seed capital second. In my opinion you will have to put energy and time worth much more than the 100k into a business over time to make it successful so the availability of capital should not be the driving decision here. Hope this helps more than it confuses.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "6f8084cf2a2404bfadf188ad59b9e254", "text": "In a situation like this, I presume you'd invest in the child company if you thought that the child company would increase in value at a higher rate than the parent. You'd invest in the parent company if you thought the parent company would perform well as a whole, but you did not want to assume the risk of an individual company underneath it. Say the child company is worth 100 million, and the parent company is worth 500 million. You've invested a sum of money in the child company. The child company performs very well, and increases in value by, say, 20 million. As the parent company owns the child, we could say it also increases in value by roughly 20 million. The difference is proportional - Your investment in the child sees a 20% gain in value, whereas your investment in the parent sees a 4% gain in total value, as in this example the parent company, which owns nearly 100% of the child company, is worth 5x more and thus proportionally sees 1/5 the increase in value, due to it being worth more as a whole. Think of it similarly to a mutual fund or ETF that invests in many different stocks on the market. As the market does well, that mutual fund or ETF does well, too. As the mutual fund is made up of many individual stocks, one stock performing very well, say at a 10-20% increase in value, does not raise the value of the ETF or mutual fund by 10-20%. The etf / mutual fund will perform slightly better (Assuming all other components remain equal for this example), but only proportionally to the fraction of it that's made up of the stock that's performing well.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bb301699c1b1d2af9ab15db1823ae5fe", "text": "Also VW has more brands, i.e. is more diversified This isn't necessarily a good thing for investing. It makes the company less likely to go down, but it limits your portfolio. For example, say you think that Hyundai is a good alternative to Volkswagen (VW) but really like Audi. If you buy VW, you get some Audi but a lot more of the rest of VW. Then if you bought Hyundai, you'd be overrepresented in that segment of the market. Audi may not be structured uniquely, but it is still the only company selling Audi brand cars. Perhaps someone thinks that those models will do well. That person may think that Audi will do exceptionally well in its niche. Having many brands isn't necessarily great. General Motors had something like sixteen brands before declaring bankruptcy. It only has twelve now. Now, it sounds like you feel the opposite about it. You don't particularly like Audi as a stock and like VW better. Your reasons sound perfectly reasonable (I know little about either company). It may even be that VW is the only one buying Audi stock, because everyone else has the same view as you.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "52ab18a2a7ca03e479b2e9b8ed29d002", "text": "You'll own whatever fraction you bought. To own the company (as in, boolean - yes or no) you need to buy 100% of the outstanding stock. RE controlling the company, in general the answer is yes - although the mechanism for this might not be so straight forward (ie. you may have to appoint board members and may only be able to do so at pre-set intervals) and there may be conditions in the company charter designed to stop this happening. Depending on your jurisdiction certain ownership percentages can also trigger the need to do certain things so you may not be able to just buy 50% - in Australia when you reach 20% ownership you have to launch a formal takeover bid.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "184e33992f587192ee5f6cbe68a089b5", "text": "Depends on the structure of the company and what shares are outstanding. If the pink sheet stock has no voting power then buying all that stock doesn't get you any control at all. On the other hand, if the outstanding shares only represent 20% of the company's overall shares, then buying all the shares isn't likely enough to have a controlling interest. Thus, you'll have to dig into the details. If you want an example of where I'd have my doubts, look at Nestle's stock which has the ticker of NSRGY. There can be companies that are structured with stock on multiple exchanges that can also be a challenge at times. There is also something to be said if you own enough stock in a company that this has to be disclosed to the SEC when you buy more.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6ea060c6609dda916ca73e499a6d44a5", "text": "A company generally sells a portion of its ownership in an IPO, with existing investors retaining some ownership. In your example, they believe that the entire company is worth $25MM, so in order to raise $3MM it is issuing stock representing 12% of the ownership stake (3/25), which dilutes some or all of the existing stockholders' claims.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "abb4cdd47e8ddd5e34572e51cc065730", "text": "Shareholders can [often] vote for management to pay dividends Shareholders are sticking around if they feel the company will be more valuable in the future, and if the company is a target for being bought out. Greater fool theory", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5f505ea025ad3b724d57c8c6297ce71a", "text": "When you buy a stock, the worst case scenario is that it drops to 0. Therefore, the most you can lose when buying a stock is 100% of your investment. When you short a stock, however, there's no limit on how high the stock can go. If you short a stock at 10, and it goes up to 30, then you've lost 200% on your investment. Therefore shorting stocks is riskier than buying stocks, since you can lose more than 100% of your investment when shorting. because the price might go up, but it will never be as big of a change as a regular price drop i suppose... That is not true. Stocks can sometimes go up significantly (50-100% or more) in a very short amount of time on a positive news release (such as an earnings or a buyout announcement). A famous example occurred in 2008, when Volkswagen stock quintupled (went up 400%) in less than 2 days on some corporate news: Porsche, for some reason, wants to control Volkswagen, and by building up its stake has driven up the price. Hedge funds, figuring the share price would fall as soon as Porsche got control and stopped buying, sold a lot of VW shares short. Then last weekend, Porsche disclosed that it owned 42.6 percent of the stock and had acquired options for another 31.5 percent. It said it wanted to go to 75 percent. The result: instant short-squeeze. The German state of Lower Saxony owns a 20 percent stake in VW, which it said it would not sell. That left precious few shares available for anyone else. The shorts scrambled to cover, and the price leaped from about €200, or about $265, to above €1,000.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8fd22fb4b04a3bab76b172ea9a18a837", "text": "Something to consider is that in the case of the company you chose, on the OTC market, that stock is thinly traded and with such low volume, it can be easy for it to fluctuate greatly to have trades occur. This is why volume can matter for some people when it comes to buying shares. Some OTC stocks may have really low volume and thus may have bigger swings than other stocks that have higher volume.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d9b868a06fb178e5790de8cb625cead1", "text": "\"The answer to your question has to do with the an explanation of \"\"shares authorized, issued and outstanding.\"\" Companies, in their Articles of Incorporation, specify a maximum number of shares they are authorized to issue. For example purposes let's assume Facebook is authorized to issue 100 shares. Let's pretend they have actually issued 75 shares, but only 50 are outstanding (aka Float, i.e. freely trading stock in the market) and stock options total 25 shares. So if someone owns 1 share, what percentage of Facebook do they own? You might think 1/100, or 1%; you might think 1/75, or 1.3%; or you might think 1/50, or 2%. 2% is the answer, but only on a NON-diluted basis. So today someone who owns 1 share owns 2% of Facebook. Tomorrow Facebook announces they just issued 15 shares to Whatsapp to buy the company. Now there are 65 shares outstanding and 90 issued. Now someone who owns 1 share of Facebook own only 1/65, or 1.5% (down from 2%)! P.S. \"\"Valuation\"\" can be thought of as the price of the stock at the time of the purchase announcement.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "08731cc1aa3d6b5299b0f83c6ebf6b87", "text": "I was looking at NAT and NAO, NAT owns 20% of NAO. They trade opposite each other on the price of oil, low is good for NAT, bad for NAO. In bad times the other company's stock would probably rise, so they could trim excess shares to keep a stable monetary holding. This would create cash in bad times, in good times they could buy more, creating a floor as well for the other.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0c7b7bc49b3a18d2c21e9f2ddc23d02c", "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.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d6cf37f3a6cb233421ff55451b1b31b2", "text": "1 reason is Leverage.... If you are buying out of the money options you get much more bang for your buck if the stock moves in your favor. The flipside is it is much more likely that you would lose all of your investment.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e44598dada0a8ebf91496f7b40fd3b2c", "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.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5939f1d283af184f432800ab3ed5f171", "text": "Another benefit of holding shares longer was just pointed out in another question: donating appreciated shares to a nonprofit may avoid the capital gains tax on those shares, which is a bigger savings the more those shares have gone up since purchase.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "50b45c1c876ea95463299d91bebd5c70", "text": "There are a few reasons, dependent on the location of the company. The first, as you mentioned is that it means that the employee is invested in the companies success - in theory this should motivate the employee to work hard in order to increase the value of their holdings. Sometimes these have a vestment period which requires that they hold the stock for a certain amount of time before they are able to sell, and that they continue working at the company for a certain amount of time. The second, is that unlike cash, providing stocks doesn't come out of the companies liquid cash. While it is still an expense and does devalue the shares of other shareholders, it doesn't effect the daily working capital which is important to maintain to ensure business continuity. And the third, and this is for the employee, is tax reasons. In particular for substantial amounts. Of course this is dependent on jurisdiction but you can often achieve lower tax rates on receiving shares vs a cash equivalent sum, as you can draw out the money over time lowering your tax obligation each year, or other methods which aren't possible to look into now. Hope this helps.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c0a75c6f74188ba156f3b7ab5fda265f", "text": "First, the stock does represent a share of ownership and if you have a different interpretation I'd like to see proof of that. Secondly, when the IPO or secondary offering happened that put those shares into the market int he first place, the company did receive proceeds from selling those shares. While others may profit afterward, it is worth noting that more than a few companies will have secondary offerings, convertible debt, incentive stock options and restricted stock that may be used down the road that are all dependent upon the current trading share price in terms of how useful these can be used to fund operations, pay executives and so forth. Third, if someone buys up enough shares of the company then they gain control of the company which while you aren't mentioning this case, it is something to note as some individuals buy stock so that they can take over the company which happens. Usually this has more of an overall plan but the idea here is that getting that 50%+1 control of the company's voting shares are an important piece to things here.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c3a98c4cdebde920a4f48f427c33fca1", "text": "Because people bought their shares under the premise that they would make more money and if the company completely lied about that they will be subject to several civil and criminal violations. If people didn't believe the company was going to make more money, they would have valued their shares lower during the IPO by not forming much of a market at all.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "af2e38ba5d717fc1e30e479aeb76faec", "text": "There are two very large negative factors that affect Yahoo's valuation. The first is that their search business is in decline and continues to lose ground to Google and even Bing. There's no sign that they have any plan or product in the works to offset this decline, so there's tremendous uncertainty about the company's forward-looking revenues. The second is that the company can't seem to decide what to do with its stake in Alibaba, clearly the company's most valuable asset. It they sell it, the question then becomes what they plan to do with the proceeds. Will they do share buybacks or offer a special dividend to reward investors? Will they use some or all of the money to make strategic acquisitions that are revenue-enhancing? Will they use it to develop new products/services? Keep in mind one other thing here, too. There's a world of difference between what something is valued at and what someone's willing to actually pay for it. A patent portfolio is great and perhaps holds good value, assuming the buyer can find a way to monetize it. How exactly was the valuation of the patents arrived at, and are they worthwhile enough for someone to pay anywhere close to that valuation? There's more to this than meets the eye by using a first-blush look at asset valuation, and that's where the professionals come in. My bet is that they have it right and there's something the rest of the market doesn't see or understand about it, hence questions like yours. I hope this helps. Good luck!", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "fca73e29b05038112a00f43c8a4f49ef", "text": "You are right: if the combined value of all outstanding GOOG shares was $495B, and the combined value of all GOOGL shares was $495B, then yes, Alphabet would have a market cap of at least $990B (where I say at least only because I myself don't know that there aren't other issues that should be in the count as well). The respective values of the total outstanding GOOG and GOOGL shares are significantly less than that at present though. Using numbers I just grabbed for those tickers from Google Finance (of course), they currently stand thus:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c13c73a337f0b416dd0e626ae4d9b7cf", "text": "To be fair, the analyst is talking about the book value of the firm. Basically, the value of all the stuff it owns now. There are plenty of companies with negative book value that can justify a positive share price. Ford, for instance, had negative book value but positive future earnings.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bde8bb444ac36988ce07146a03f4c082", "text": "It seems like there is a really good reason for that code &gt;In July, Chief Executive John Mackey apologized to shareholders for posting messages on a Yahoo Inc chat forum under an alias for years. The postings talked up Whole Foods while criticizing rival Wild Oats Markets Inc, which it later bought. http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSN0742771620071107", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0de21f07d75649e3ba25a1de809850f8", "text": "It's funny that you are being downvoted because it's a great question. If someone other than Mayer had been running Yahoo for the last 5 years under the exact same circumstances, would they have made the same decisions? Obviously no one can ever know but it makes you think.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "390ab4450127e57b02d330d3445483a5", "text": "I'm not looking to contradict a fact. I'm contradicting the view that the fact is bad. It's not. Investors need an incentive to keep investing, in the short and long term. If, for example, pharma companies were to invest only in R&amp;D, which is a high risk, high reward, long term prospect, it'd be exposed to only one kind of risk which is open to a single risk-factor materialising, at which point the entire equity will be wiped off in one single sweep. At the end of the day, all businesses have to create share holder value, in the short and long term. The only contemporary exceptions are StartUps like Amazon and Uber. And we know from Dotcom Bust, Yahoo, etc that this is hardly a tenable strategy.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "752bb99d8cc3124e1fcb2118204503bf", "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.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "202984fdfca72013590d80a373c28d40", "text": "\"P/E is Price divided by Earnings Per Share (EPS). P/E TTM is Price divided by the actual EPS earned over the previous 12 months - hence \"\"Trailing Twelve Month\"\". In Forward P/E is the \"\"E\"\" is the average of analyst expectations for the next year in EPS. Now, as to what's being displayed. Yahoo shows EPS to be 1.34. 493.90/1.34 = P/E of 368.58 Google shows EPS to be 0.85. 493.40/0.85 = P/E of 580.47 (Prices as displayed, respectively) So, by the info that they are themselves displaying, it's Google, not Yahoo, that's displaying the wrong P/E. Note that the P/E it is showing is 5.80 -- a decimal misplacement from 580 Note that CNBC shows the Earnings as 0.85 as well, and correctly show the P/E as 580 http://data.cnbc.com/quotes/BP.L A quick use of a currency calculator reveals a possible reason why EPS is listed differently at yahoo. 0.85 pounds is 1.3318 dollars, currently. So, I think the Yahoo EPS listing is in dollars. A look at the last 4 quarters on CNBC makes that seem reasonable: http://data.cnbc.com/quotes/BP.L/tab/5 those add up to $1.40.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c70fe3f44d8dc44cd4530e8e6c0d2e4a", "text": "But which effect is larger, short-term stupidity or long-term rationality? Investors may repeatedly make this mistake and forever affect FACE's price because of FB's actions. Maybe the fools who confused FB and FACE last month have learned their lessons, but the market provides an inexhaustible supply of fools.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "223e6fab8b0213dd99e8d0ecadc72d32", "text": "Deciding the business valuation Minneapolis isn’t an easy task and this requires a perfect graph. While you have decided on the values you need to avoid the following four don’ts that will save you from suffering any loss in the selling process. Click below:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "96ffe6a551593b9b69ec6a68d6a2175b", "text": "You may refer to project http://jstock.sourceforge.net. It is open source and released under GPL. It is fetching data from Yahoo! Finance, include delayed current price and historical price.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e7e3a0ceb307a0ee2142b0777c8f81f4", "text": "\"Do you realize that the board understood Yahoo was a sinking ship? Her primary objective was enabling enough scaffolding to get Yahoo acquired and not reach complete bankruptcy. In terms of the shareholders, she stood by them and did a fantastic job with what little she had. As for Yahoo's \"\"survival\"\"? She dug that shit its grave but it was already a fossilized species. No ex-Google Exec would've changed that.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d65ec7e6e09e5ff8d8fec103fc6a67c6", "text": "This is potentially a real risk to Google. The odds of such a huge success it decreases Google's profits are tiny (I think). But there is a real risk that the increase in Google's profits going forward are materially affected by a well done competitor to Adsense. If Amazon took away 10% of what Google's Adsense business 4 years from now would have been that is likely material to Google's earning. Not huge but real. Even losing the ads on Amazon's web site is likely noticeable (though not a huge deal I would guess to Google - though to most companies it would be a huge lose). There is even the potential Google has to reduce their profitability on AdSense to compete - giving web sites a better cut of revenue. That said I think Amazon has plenty of challenges to making it an effective competitor to Google. But they have a chance. And there is even a small chance (very small I think) that Amazon could create a competitor that actually results in noticeably (say over 15%) declining revenue to Google via Adsense. Likely even in this case Google continues to grow profit as a company overall. Google revenue from ads from their own websites are the most important earnings and likely to continue to be so. Also new business (non web-ad-income) is growing and I think will continue to do so (this is likely an area some might find more questionable).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b1fd26ee58a9ba5d07e635ce82827285", "text": "Good questions. I can only add that it may be valuable if the company is bought, they may buy the options. Happened to me in previous company.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5d07933ae57a11c32fbc214ae24f788d", "text": "The biggest value driver we identified were staff costs. If Amazon implements their Amazon Go technology in Whole Foods' stores(which I assume is their current plan) they would be able to cut a large chunk of staff costs reducing COGS significantly. With Jana Partners buying up shares and an already large institutional share of ownership we saw the likelyhood of success of a deal to be quite high. The new technology is exciting and we believe interest for shopping at Amazon will be high the first years which brings revenue synergies to the table. I'm on mobile right now(at work) so maybe I can give a more detailed answer later.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bdc980ff5772058bbf3a0c61f9a81214", "text": "That's right. I wouldn't say that she directly caused Yahoo's downfall since that was put into motion long before she started. However, she did nothing that succeeded in changing Yahoo's trajectory after she took over. Yahoo could have done essentially nothing and it would have ended roughly the same. People are just upset that she got compensated quite well without achieving anything of significance.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "c156209751f676df4da54f3b864594b3", "text": "You can likely use bollinger band values to programmatically recognize sideways trending stocks. Bollinger band averages expand during periods of volatility and then converge on the matched prices the longer there is little volatility in the asset prices. Also, look at the bollinger band formula to see if you can glean how that indicator does it, so that you can create something more custom fit to your idea.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "e4e05e49e26aa1ad784cf0a3d54fbf5a", "text": "\"I (and probably most considering trading) had a similar thought as you. I thought if I just skimmed the peaks and sold before the troughs, perhaps aided by computer, I'd be able to make a 2% here, 2% there, and that would add up quickly to a nice amount of money. It almost did seem \"\"foolproof\"\". Then I realized that sometimes a stock just slides...down...and there is no peak higher than what I bought it for. \"\"That's OK,\"\" I'd think, \"\"I'm sure it will recover and surpass the price I bought it for...so now I play the waiting game.\"\" But then it continues sliding, and my $10k is now worth $7k. Do I sell? Did I build a stop loss point into my computer program? If so, what is the right place to put that stop? What if there is a freak dip down and it triggers the stop loss but THEN my stock recovers? I just lost $14,000 like this last week--luckily, only virtually! The point is, your idea only has half a chance to work when there is a mildly volatile stock that stays around some stable baseline, and even then it is not easy. And then you factor in fees as others mentioned... People do make money doing this (day traders), and some claim you can use technical analysis to time orders well, so if you want to try that, read about technical analysis on this site or elsewhere.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3dccc75bc4b29bf2cb80a8c9dff15b95", "text": "\"My answer is Microsoft Excel. Google \"\"VBA for dummies\"\" (seriously) and find out if your brokerage offers an 'API'. With a brief understanding of coding you can get a spreadsheet that is live connected to your brokers data stream. Say you have a spreadsheet with the 1990 value of each in the first two columns (cells a1 and b1). Maybe this formula could be the third column, it'll tell you how much to buy or sell to rebalance them. then to iterate the rebalance, set both a2 and b2 to =C1 and drag the formula through row 25, one row for each year. It'll probably be a little more work than that, but you get the idea.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "69ee4eb97802ac7b06182ae09914cfe2", "text": "\"I think what you really want to look into is put options. You can essentially replicate the same thing, without worrying about margin calls. Check out this site http://www.fundamentalfinance.com/options/options-basic-charts.php a quick glance seems to show it to be pretty good. The way you would limit downside risk is to buy a put option, allowing you to sell anytime within the next n months for the current price (assuming american). This will allow you to limit downside risk, however, potential profits do go down due to fees as another answer suggests this could be cost prohibitive. This type of strategy is also known as a \"\"protective put\"\". http://www.optionseducation.org/strategies_advanced_concepts/strategies/protective_put.html If you wanted to be more refined you could use Ak's bands, although you have to be looking for that specific outcome. Also due to complexity, this can become a taxing (in terms of time invested) and risky (if you are wrong) investment. Either way I think you need to study payoff curves a little more.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c15f5c199a1f0c161a1d09258410508b", "text": "Best of luck! Just an FYI, a great deal of finance firms look for people like you. The way you perceive things is completely different from the way someone who is traditionally trained in finance. Look into some peers of DE. Also, Private Equity (PE) firms...mainly the ones dealing with bio/pharma/whatever you specialize in. What are your excel skills like? Make them better! No mouse. Know VLOOKUP, GETPIVOTDATA, etc. Again, not to become redundant, but figure out what you want to do and go from there... If you are good/quick with your math look for trading. There are a lot of books out there on the subject of trading. Liar's Poker by Michael Lewis, will give you an insight to the lifestyle/mantra of traders (during the 80s). If you like digging into numbers/investigating things you may want to look into a more analytical role. To figure out if you like this read some financial statements. Look on SEC.gov, navigate to EDGAR. Look up a 10-k (annual report) and a 10-q (quarterly report). See if you like poking around/figuring out why and how things work. Hit up seekingalpha.com. This is a hodgepodge of people's opinion. Saying why they want to buy/sell a security. Look at the reasons. They will cite certain economic indicators or other signals. Seekingalpha is a place that can show you how financial types think. See how your views differ or align. Or even if you can expand on what they are saying. Investopedia is a great place to learn jargon and other terms. Frequent this place. Key terms: http://www.financialmodelingguide.com/financial-modeling-tips/tips/banking-financial-terms/ This gives short definitions. Investopedia will give you in depth definitions. Are you currently employed as a RandomAcademicDean? Does your college offer free courses to staff? If yes, take some classes FOR FREE! Take an accounting course (skip managerial, stick with financial), an econ course, a finance course. I am going to assume your college offers a class in Econometrics. Talk to one of the professors, if you think this class would be manageable, sign up. They will probably say your should take MACRO and MICRO. This is true, but you have a P.h.D in Chemistry so you have a demonstrated aptitude towards academia. Econometrics, in short, can be considered the science of business. Bottom line: Figure our your interest within the financial realm, act upon it. Play up your knowledge in chemistry (as a quantitative science) and experience as a dean (think management role). tl;dr soak up knowledge. regurgitate when necessary. P.h.D = good. read a lot. Finance is a big world, you will fit in!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ecc5a71b5cfd26e7abc7866f5555af4a", "text": "Hey, I suggest you check this place out: http://www.investopedia.com/university/ You can start from there and then read through the things you don't know about and move on from there. When using youtube, search for specific things rather than a general/broad search. For example here's a good youtube video relating to Candlestick Breakout Patterns: https://youtu.be/1fB3EF7XeXU", "title": "" }, { "docid": "56941f61022dfec7fea49b5f306ff12e", "text": "\"You can certainly try to do this, but it's risky and very expensive. Consider a simplified example. You buy 1000 shares of ABC at $1.00 each, with the intention of selling them all when the price reaches $1.01. Rinse and repeat, right? You might think the example above will net you a tidy $10 profit. But you have to factor in trade commissions. Most brokerages are going to charge you per trade. Fidelity for example, want $4.95 per trade; that's for both the buying and the selling. So your 1000 shares actually cost you $1004.95, and then when you sell them for $1.01 each, they take their $4.95 fee again, leaving you with a measly $1.10 in profit. Meanwhile, your entire $1000 stake was at risk of never making ANY profit - you may have been unlucky enough to buy at the stock's peak price before a slow (or even fast) decline towards eventual bankruptcy. The other problem with this is that you need a stock that is both stable and volatile at the same time. You need the volatility to ensure the price keeps swinging between your buy and sell thresholds, over and over again. You need stability to ensure it doesn't move well away from those thresholds altogether. If it doesn't have this weird stable-volatility thing, then you are shooting yourself in the foot by not holding the stock for longer: why sell for $1.01 if it goes up to $1.10 ten minutes later? Why buy for $1.00 when it keeps dropping to $0.95 ten minutes later? Your strategy means you are always taking the smallest possible profit, for the same amount of risk. Another method might be to only trade each stock once, and hope that you never pick a loser. Perhaps look for something that has been steadily climbing in price, buy, make your tiny profit, then move on to the next company. However you still have the risk of buying something at it's peak price and being in for an awfully long wait before you can cash out (if ever). And if all that wasn't enough to put you off, brokerages have special rules for \"\"frequent traders\"\" that just make it all the more complicated. Not worth the hassle IMO.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3bd438a6f4f107d2889bb2052ca1a935", "text": "As an easy way to answer... look at an index, let's say the S&P 500. Look at the price this last October, and predict where it will move in November... easy right? It already happened, and you have the benefit of hindsight. The move looks like such a consistent, obvious continuation of the previous up and down pattern. It looks predictable, like you could have guessed that. Now, look at today's price, and predict where it will go next month. Not so easy now? The problem is, every point you're at, all the time, looks like a possible inflection point or turning point. If you're following an uptrend, you may think it'll continue, but you may also think that it zigged so far up already, that now it's ready for a zag down where you'll buy. So you wait... and it keeps rising, and you kick yourself for missing out. Next time, you see another uptrend and resolve to buy it regardless, thinking now it'll keep going, but it turns down the second you buy it, and keeps dropping. You kick yourself again. The market is amazing at doing this to you every time. In real time, every wiggle in the price looks simultaneously like a trend that could continue, and like a trend that has moved far enough and is ready to reverse. And more likely you'll guess the wrong one. The ONLY way with some little hope of succeeding is to study study study, and find and learn trading rules with just over 50/50 chances (like buying when a moving average is touched within an uptrend as an example, and setting a stop loss at -1%, and a sell limit at +2% or something), and then never ever deviate from that strategy, because your only hope is in the consistency of statistics and odds over time. You'll get many -1% losses, and hopefully enough 2% gains to compensate the losses, plus some profit. OR, to make it easier, just buy in on a dip, and hold and hold and collect dividends, and be content to match the market without effort.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "17c815b12c2408e0d62155fa135edc2e", "text": "Start by going onto google.com/finance and click through every publicly traded Fortune 500 company. Click on all their charts and look through their graphs for any patters. There will almost always be a pattern even if it is vague and fairly unpredictable. Then look for any jumps or drops in price. Look for the reason of the jump or drop. It could range commonly from news, lay off announcements, acquisitions, etc or just moving along with the market direction for the day. Looking at each stock is key because every stock has its own pattern. Trying to understand the market at a whole is quite impossible, but when you narrow it down to just one stock, it is much more doable. For practice, try updown.com(spent most of my time on it during high school) and create 10-100 accounts and use various techniques for each portfolio. Just from that, you will have much more practice than the majority of traders. It is all very time consuming, but if you truly try on it, you will do better. I have to go(large market drop today, good time to buy). I'll answer more questions later!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5685b1ded2c93079cd5e6b11fdc85535", "text": "I found that an application already exists which does virtually everything I want to do with a reasonable interface. Its called My Personal Index. It has allowed me to look at my asset allocation all in one place. I'll have to enter: The features which solve my problems above include: Note - This is related to an earlier post I made regarding dollar cost averaging and determining rate of returns. (I finally got off my duff and did something about it)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d6785de13ddb0dbb31dddee8e6ca16c9", "text": "Reuters has a service you can subscribe to that will give you lots of Financial information that is not readily available in common feeds. One of the things you can find is the listing/delist dates of stocks. There are tools to build custom reports. That would be a report you could write. You can probably get the data for free through their rss feeds and on their website, but the custom reports is a paid feature. FWIW re-listing(listings that have been delisted but return to a status that they can be listed again) is pretty rare. And I can not think of too many(any actually) penny stocks that have grown to be listed on a major exchange.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0e4dd0800c43b069a301a33451519f63", "text": "\"I'd start with a Google search for \"\"best backtesting tools.\"\" Does your online brokerage offer anything? You already understand that the data is the important part. The good stuff isn't free. But yeah, if you have some money to spend you can get more than enough data to completely overwhelm you. :)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "81c016998574efc6dbf2244659066d3b", "text": "\"Strategy would be my top factor. While this may be implied, I do think it helps to have an idea of what is causing the buy and sell signals in speculating as I'd rather follow a strategy than try to figure things out completely from scratch that doesn't quite make sense to me. There are generally a couple of different schools of analysis that may be worth passing along: Fundamental Analysis:Fundamental analysis of a business involves analyzing its financial statements and health, its management and competitive advantages, and its competitors and markets. When applied to futures and forex, it focuses on the overall state of the economy, interest rates, production, earnings, and management. When analyzing a stock, futures contract, or currency using fundamental analysis there are two basic approaches one can use; bottom up analysis and top down analysis. The term is used to distinguish such analysis from other types of investment analysis, such as quantitative analysis and technical analysis. Technical Analysis:In finance, technical analysis is a security analysis methodology for forecasting the direction of prices through the study of past market data, primarily price and volume. Behavioral economics and quantitative analysis use many of the same tools of technical analysis, which, being an aspect of active management, stands in contradiction to much of modern portfolio theory. The efficacy of both technical and fundamental analysis is disputed by the efficient-market hypothesis which states that stock market prices are essentially unpredictable. There are tools like \"\"Stock Screeners\"\" that will let you filter based on various criteria to use each analysis in a mix. There are various strategies one could use. Wikipedia under Stock Speculator lists: \"\"Several different types of stock trading strategies or approaches exist including day trading, trend following, market making, scalping (trading), momentum trading, trading the news, and arbitrage.\"\" Thus, I'd advise research what approach are you wanting to use as the \"\"Make it up as we go along losing real money all the way\"\" wouldn't be my suggested approach. There is something to be said for there being numerous columnists and newsletter peddlers if you want other ideas but I would suggest having a strategy before putting one's toe in the water.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4809d86d4acb03d754450eb270c48fa1", "text": "For video games the S&amp;P home entertainment software index will probably work. For airlines there's the S&amp;P airlines index but that may not work well for private jets. You should browse different S&amp;P indicies based on GICS classifications or any other indicies you may find and then download their returns for the past few years and run a regression analysis on excel. Find the correlation between the indicies and the stock you're looking at then select the index with the highest correlation.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0c504887992c7acc59ad707ecd200e98", "text": "I use the following method. For each stock I hold long term, I have an individual table which records dates, purchases, sales, returns of cash, dividends, and way at the bottom, current value of the holding. Since I am not taking the income, and reinvesting across the portfolio, and XIRR won't take that into account, I build an additional column where I 'gross up' the future value up to today() of that dividend by the portfolio average yield at the date the dividend is received. The grossing up formula is divi*(1+portfolio average return%)^((today-dividend date-suitable delay to reinvest)/365.25) This is equivalent to a complex XMIRR computation but much simpler, and produces very accurate views of return. The 'weighted combined' XIRR calculated across all holdings then agrees very nearly with the overall portfolio XIRR. I have done this for very along time. TR1933 Yes, 1933 is my year of birth and still re investing divis!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8dd62f110f6b8cff7dd0d6d8c8a51f21", "text": "It depends how you do it. If you roll it from your 401k directly to a Roth then you will have to pay the taxes. The contributions to the 401k are tax deferred. Meaning you do not owe taxes on the money until you collect it. Roth contributions are post tax but the gains are not taxed so long as they are disbursed under acceptable conditions according to the regulations. If you roll it directly from the 401k to a regular tax deferred IRA you should be able to do that with out penalties or taxes. You will still have to pay the taxes at disbursement. If you have the money disbursed to you directly then you will have to pay the penalties, fees, and taxes. Your contributions to an IRA will then be subject to limitations based on the IRA. It will literally be exactly like you are taking money from your pocket to invest in the IRA. Your company should give you the option of a rollover check. This check will be made out to you but it will not be able to be deposited in a regular account or cashed. It will only be redeemable for deposit into a retirement account that meets the regulatory requirements of the 401k rollover criteria. I believe the check I received a few years ago was only good for 60 days. I recall that after 60 days that check was void and I would receive a standard disbursement and would be subject to fees and penalties. I am not sure if that was the policy of T.Rowe Price or if that is part of the regulation.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "373405496876cbac2dcdeaea58cecc4b", "text": "\"Anthony Russell - I agree with JohnFx. Petroleum is used in making many things such as asphalt, road oil, plastic, jet fuel, etc. It's also used in some forms of electricity generation, and some electric cars use gasoline as a backup form of energy, petrol is also used in electricity generation outside of cars. Source can be found here. But to answer your question of why shares of electric car companies are not always negatively related to one another deals with supply and demand. If investors feel positively about petroleum and petroleum related prospects, then they are going to buy or attempt to buy shares of \"\"X\"\" petrol company. This will cause the price of \"\"X\"\", petrol company to rise, ceteris paribus. Just because the price of petroleum is high doesn't mean investors are going to buy shares of an electric car company. Petrol prices could be high, but numerous electric car companies could be doing poorly, now, with that being said you could argue that sales of electric cars may go up when petrol prices are high, but there are numerous factors that come into play here. I think it would be a good idea to do some more research if you are planning on investing. Also, remember, after a company goes public they no longer set the price of the shares of their stock. The price of company \"\"X\"\" shares are determined by supply and demand, which is inherently determined by investors attitudes and expectations, ultimately defined by past company performance, expectations of future performance, earnings, etc.. It could be that when the market is doing well - it's a good sign of other macroeconomic variables (employment, GDP, incomes, etc) and all these factors power how often individuals travel, vacation, etc. It also has to deal with the economy of the country producing the oil, when you have OPEC countries selling petrol to the U.S. it is likely much cheaper per barrel than domestic produced and refined petrol because of the labor laws, etc. So a strong economy may be somewhat correlated with oil prices and a strong market, but it's not necessarily the case that strong oil prices drive the economy..I think this is a great research topic that cannot be answered in one post.. Check this article here. From here you can track down what research the Fed of Cleveland has done concerning this. My advice to you is to not believe everything your peers tell you, but to research everything your peers tell you. With just a few clicks you can figure out the legitimacy of many things to at least some degree.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "e0032eafca184fb6973d7d72b2f60f85", "text": "If you believe in the efficient market hypothesis then the stock price reflects the information known to market participants. Consequently, if the 'market' expected earnings to rise, and they did, then the price won't change. Clearly there are circumstances, especially in the short term and for illiquid stocks, where this isn't true, but a lot of work points to this being the case on average.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fa2aae462316eb64f23cb448a361783e", "text": "I found the answer. It was the Stock Ticker that I was looking for. So, if I understand correctly the price at certain moment is the price of the latest sale and can be used to get a global picture of what certain stock is worth at that certain instant.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b070c874aafa6d7e575f97ac83d90b0b", "text": "Stock prices are set by supply and demand. If a particular stock has a high EPS, say, $100, then people will bid more for that stock, driving up its price over one with a $10 EPS. Your job as an investor is to find stocks with low share prices, but which will give you high earnings (either in dividends, our future share price). This means finding stocks which you believe the market has priced incorrectly, for whatever reason (as an example, many bank stocks are being punished right now, even if the underlying banks are in good shape financially). If you want to beat the market indices, be prepared to do a lot of research, because you're trying to outsmart the market as a whole.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b5577687015abf8effe0f8e71efa4b86", "text": "The Oil futures are exactly that. They are people forecasting the price of oil at a point of time in the future where they are willing to buy oil at that price. That said, Do you have evidence of a correlation of Price of oil to the shares of oil stocks? Oil companies that are good investments are generally good investments regardless of the cost of oil. If you did not know about oil futures then you might be best served by consulting an investment professional for some guidance.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "796487f012494d5e5993c3ebbc023089", "text": "It's a lot easier to trade a contract based on the forward value (a futures contract) of some commodity, than say constantly trade &amp; deliver 1000 barrels of crude oil. Along those lines, it's also easier to trade an option on the forward value than it is an option on the actual commodity, especially if you have the ability to exercise the option", "title": "" }, { "docid": "08d5925d71bac21221c3b6a39b518ede", "text": "There is a difference between trading which is short term focussed and investing which is longterm focussed. On the long term what drives stock prices is still the overall economy and the performance of the underlying business aspects. I do not think that any trading algorithms will change this. These are more concerned with short term profits regardless of the underlying business economics. Therefore I think that longterm investing using index funds is still a viable strategy for most private investors.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1573214cfdfec4d6fa1fe1498bde43ed", "text": "Royalty trusts track oil prices (they're a pure play on ownership of a portfolio of mineral rights and do not otherwise have the operations that the oil companies themselves have). Many publicly traded ones listed at the embedded wikipedia link. Oil tankers are having a bang up business right now as described in the article, but that's because of the low prices and flood of product from the middle east. The article notes that inventories are near capacity, so terminals and pipelines may be in for a few good years, though these do not directly track oil price. However, as a way to bet on oil or oil services, many terminals and pipelines are organized as publicly traded master limited partnerships or MLPs, often spun out of a major oil company for tax reasons, allowing fine-grained investment in specific assets.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "49f779c5fabf42933fb87c49daf79771", "text": "You would think that share prices is just a reflection of how well the company is doing but that is not always the case. Sometimes it reflects the investor confidence in the company more than the mere performance. So for instance if some oil company causes some natural disaster by letting one of there oil tankers crash into a coral reef then investor confidence my take a big hit and share prices my fall even if the bottom line of the company was not all that effected.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cfa421581bea21a5ab22453e69ebc6f0", "text": "I understand I am being a tad simplistic. But we can all pull a Wikipedia article out of our ass can't we? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_oil_crisis Similar price increase ($3 --&gt; $12). But lets just compare the effects by looking at the length of the article and not the content. I concede I am again be a tad simplistic. But the oil shortage nearly escalated into a full blown war, crashed the stock market, and all these other implications. I think that supports my original argument to OPs question, dont you think u/raybrignsx?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "01549a34a62d13387374f3e5bd98e2be", "text": "Because our entire economy is based on the stuff to keep going and every ounce has to be pulled out of the ground from somewhere. Microsoft and Apple couldn't exist without oil to create the plastic and other components that go into computer hardware let alone getting employees to their campuses via car or bus.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "27c4e69d2f392f68687ad026b2b9ae91", "text": "The stock market's principal justification is matching investors with investment opportunities. That's only reasonably feasible with long-term investments. High frequency traders are not interested in investments, they are interested in buying cheap and selling expensive. Holding reasonably robust shares for longer binds their capital which is one reason the faster-paced business of dealing with options is popular instead. So their main manner of operation is leeching off actually occuring investments by letting the investors pay more than the recipients of the investments receive. By now, the majority of stock market business is indirect and tries guessing where the money goes rather than where the business goes. For one thing, this leads to the stock market's evaluations being largely inflated over the actual underlying committed deals happening. And as the commitment to an investment becomes rare, the market becomes more volatile and instable: it's money running in circles. Fast trading is about running in front of where the money goes, anticipating the market. But if there is no actual market to anticipate, only people running before the imagination of other people running before money, the net payout converges to zero as the ratio of serious actual investments in tangible targets declines. By and large, high frequency trading converges to a Ponzi scheme, and you try being among the winners of such a scheme. But there are a whole lot of people competing here, and essentially the net payoff is close to zero due to the large volumes in circulation as opposed to what ends up in actual tangible investments. It's a completely different game with different rules riding on the original idea of a stock market. So you have to figure out what your money should be doing according to your plans.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7da17d5be6aabf802964420172f6efc5", "text": "\"Sure they work - right until they don't. Explanation: A stock picking strategy based on technical indicators is at worst a mix of random guessing and confirmation bias, which will \"\"work\"\" only due to luck. At best, it exploits a systematic inefficiency of the market. And any such inefficiency will automatically disappear when it is exploited by many traders. If it's published in a book, it is pretty much guaranteed not to work anymore. Oh, and you only get to know in hindsight (if at all) which of the two cases above applies to any given strategy.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0c7b7bc49b3a18d2c21e9f2ddc23d02c", "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.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ab41d6c78c693447643f593776ed6292", "text": "Generally speaking, you want to find goods and services that are inelastic and also require oil as a cost. Oil company stocks make record profits when oil is high, because direct demand for oil is relatively inelastic. Profit margins of oil competition should also go up, as this creates inflation in general, as people seek alternatives to the inelastic demand.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c91297683206cb39dec045727fa5d288", "text": "The stock market exists for two reasons. It lets companies raise money to invest, and it lets company owners cash out and get money instead of part-ownership of a company when they are ready to do so. But to accomplish these goals effectively, it needs many more transactions than just those kinds of transaction, because you have to be able to find a buyer when you need one and to have a market price. So there are also a lot of transactions that are just to try to make short-term profit. But we need those transactions to provide the market liquidity to let the stock market work properly for its actual purposes.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "e34390210a590d11712ad5d019a137c8", "text": "There are 2 credit unions in the Metro NY area that are open to everyone: You might also want to check out aSmarterChoice.org to see if there are other credit union options based on where you live, work, worship & more.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "10702c2100c7c27f7e4648467503d729", "text": "I would have been tempted to dismiss your claim, but the data I found shows that you're correct. On the plus side, the growth rate in credit union market share is higher in New York than it is in California. While there is no question that bankers hate credit unions, I can't tell you why credit unions have a smaller market share in NY. Maybe the regulatory environment is part of it. Banks have a big lobby, and they pay a lot of taxes in NYC.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "db7024a10e95c39c93206a786964e63e", "text": "There are lots of credit unions that are insured by the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) through the National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund (NCUSIF) instead of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). Both cover individual accounts up to $250,000. If you are looking for non-trivial returns on your money, you should consider a brokerage account which is insured by the Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SPIC). In the case of SPIC insured accounts, what you are insured against is the failure of the broker (not against loss on your investments if you choose to invest poorly). SPIC insurance covers up to $500,000 in losses from an insolvent broker. You have already indicated your lack of interest in using other investments, but I am not aware of any non-insured accounts that offer higher interest than insured accounts. You have also indicated your lack of interest in investment advice, but it sounds like what you are looking for is offered by a stable value fund.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e8fea53958ed1b385cd51e65b33969c5", "text": "\"I was a millennial \"\"stuck\"\" in New York. I was in law school when the crash happened. I wanted to practice in smaller cities like CLT or ATL but immediately after the crash there were very few jobs, while New York started doing deals again by about late 2009. So I had to go to NY. You end up getting \"\"stuck\"\" because of the barriers to move. For me it was the bar. But there are others like markets that recovered more slowly, experience requirements set by employers, the fact that there are simply more jobs in large urban markets. Most of my law school class started in SF, NY, Chi, and LA. Now we're on our 2nd firm or city in CLT, ATL, HOU, MIA, etc.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "461c152324958ced29ae3830eb5af3d6", "text": "Nope. Credit Unions are for the customers. Since the customers own them, the credit union does what is best for the members. They aren't giving you money, they are loaning it to you for for interest. Furthermore then judged you like any other bank would. High horse moment: I believe the only reason you have to open an account, is because the banking industry didn't want to compete and got legislation to limit the size and reach of a credit union. The credit union wants your business, and they want to work for you, but they are required to have these membership requirements because their lobby isn't as powerful as regular banks.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "243f7d342fd6a6f5f2d46f5202cab554", "text": "&gt; accessing all atms fee free, having services available 24/7, having robust, safe and audited online services, and having a big enough bank that all major third party tools interface with it. You just described my single state credit union I've been with for 19 years now, and not the big bank I was with before (Wells Fargo).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "134b420c0ccd71d39a83ebe4b8800232", "text": "CUs are now starting to adopt some of the bank's tricks, like using a longer float during online bill paying and for outside transfers. Also for overdrafts they are now starting to kick into fees or automatic loans rather than transferring money from your savings account. I've been a member for decades and my CUs weren't doing this previously.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "75711be3db9794e3ec7fe7bc7e0195f3", "text": "Actually it seems you are not quite correct about the number of different banks in Canada. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_banks_and_credit_unions_in_Canada According to this link there are 82-86 banks in Canada plus credit unions. This may still be lower than what would correspond to the number of banks in the US, scaled for canadian population. One further reason not mentioned before could be that the population density in Canada outside of the metropolitan areas could be lower than in the US, leaving to few small towns large enough (10,000+ (a guess corrected due to comment)) to support a bank.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ab55a38bce19c987afb5a8ec3c885fdd", "text": "I worked at Wells Fargo Home Mortgage right before all the ARM loan stuff hit the news. Everyone on the board was constantly talking about increasing their portfolios. One of the main ways they aimed to do this was by creating new loan products aimed at non-traditional borrowers (read: people who didn't meet the requirements for their traditional loan products). We had quarterly company-wide meetings to inform us about this kind of thing and it never really seemed like a great plan to me. Two years later, and the banks started failing.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c6ddb84841ba35ab5fc8c50d1d484257", "text": "If his credit union participates in the national Co-Op, then he will be able to withdraw money at any participating credit union. He could just bring cash a check out in his name, just like he would at home.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e20ca1ed7ba57ada5af42c7a9bdf23d1", "text": "RTFA &gt;Noah places the high-water mark for unionism in the mid-1950s, when nearly 40 percent of American workers were either union members or “nonunion members who were nonetheless covered by union contracts.” In the early postwar years, even the Chamber of Commerce believed that “collective bargaining is a part of the democratic process,” as its then-president noted in a statement. &gt;But, in the late-1970s, union membership began falling off a cliff, brought on by a variety of factors, including jobs moving offshore and big labor’s unsavory reputation. Government didn’t help either: Ronald Reagan’s firing of the air traffic controllers in 1981 sent an unmistakable signal that companies could run roughshod over federal laws intended to protect unions — which they’ve done ever since. &gt;The result is that today unions represent 12 percent of the work force. “Draw one line on a graph charting the decline in union membership, then superimpose a second line charting the decline in middle-class income share,” writes Noah, “and you will find that the two lines are nearly identical.” Richard Freeman, a Harvard economist, has estimated that the decline of unions explains about 20 percent of the income gap.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "569b4d3430a01ce6c9ab4610bb4821c0", "text": "Well, they tried but banks pretty much refused to lend and/or people refused to borrow. At least not enough to ignite inflation. And now with a tightening cycle underway it's going to take a recession to get the fed to change course.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4ddf489c9ec6ff493218dc9a3e56f047", "text": "They're all over the place: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_automated_urban_metro_subway_systems But yes unions are mostly why there aren't more of them and I have some sympathy for them - especially since Robotics &amp; automation are likely to significantly change or destroy most of our jobs over the next 20 years....", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0867705f0dd1577a78469c3e2a9ecc71", "text": "\"I know many people who would recommend joining a credit union. They're typically local and are not-for-profit entities (not non-profit like a charity). The \"\"customers\"\" are actually members who cooperatively provide financial services to the other members. Oftentimes if there's a surplus of profits at the end of the year, they divvy them up to the members based on how many accounts they have, what their balances are, loans, etc.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0d57a595cc31caf9543fc27603a5a3c4", "text": "Any institution that issues checks and is connected to the ACH system can be the passive side. Any institution that clears checks and is connected to the ACH system can be the originating side. Not any institution that can be - in fact is. Your credit union doesn't provide this service because they don't want to. It costs them money to implement and support it, but they don't see the required benefit to justify it. They can. My credit union does that.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2c2b5675ead73a08d535df4876b8ea5c", "text": "\"I can't find a citation, but from memory (EDIT: and reading the newspapers at the time it happened): up until around 1980, banks couldn't cross state borders. In my state, at least, they were also very local, only staying within one county. This was to enforce \"\"localness\"\", the thought being that local bankers would know local people and the local situation better than far away people who only see numbers and paperwork.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bc871db013821451458935548a97e542", "text": "Besides, if you don't like how your Credit Union is investing your money, you can always agitate for change by asking members to change the board that governs it. Being a member of a Credit Union gives you a vote on how the institution runs itself.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "34cde1e8bd12eb8855f66997fb014b0c", "text": "Without reading the source, from your description it seems that the author believes that this particular company was undervalued in the marketplace. It seems that investors were blinded by a small dividend, without considering the actual value of the company they were owners of. Remember that a shareholder has the right to their proportion of the company's net value, and that amount will be distributed both (a) in the form of dividends and (b) on liquidation of the company. Theoretically, EPS is an indication of how much value an investor's single share has increased by in the year [of course this is not accurate, because accounting income does not directly correlate with company value increase, but it is a good indicator]. This means in this example that each share had a return of $10, of which the investors only received $1. The remainder sat in the company for further investment. Considering that liquidation may never happen, particularly within the time-frame that a particular investor wants to hold a share, some investors may undervalue share return that does not come in the form of a dividend. This may or may not be legitimate, because if the company reinvests its profits in poorer performing projects, the investors would have been better off getting the dividend immediately. However some value does need to be given to the non-dividend ownership of the company. It seems the author believes that investors failing to consider value of the non-dividend part of the corporation's shares in question led to an undervaluation of the company's shares in the market.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c32b346f9673dd384bb14d3388462a3c", "text": "\"The company was paying \"\"only\"\" $1 a share in dividends, compared to $10 a share in earnings. That is a so-called payout ratio of 10%, which is low. A more normal payout ratio would be 40%, something like $4 a share. If a $13 stock had a $4 dividend, the dividend yield would be about 30%, which would be \"\"too high,\"\" meaning that the price would go up to drive down the resulting yield. Even $1 a share on a $13 stock is a high dividend of about 7%, allowing for appreciation to say, the $20-$25 range. Graham was a great believer in the theory that management should pay out \"\"most\"\" of its earnings in dividends. He believed that by holding dividends so far below earnings, the company was either being \"\"stingy,\"\" or signalling that the $10 a share of earnings was unsustainable. Either of these would be bad for the stock. For instance, if $1 a share in dividends actually represented a 40% payout ratio, it would signal management's belief that they could normally earn only $2.50 a year instead of $10.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "76a1ddda269ce2c42c5770630688753b", "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.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "577d32a6386ae00278c2b00cdf53fbc9", "text": "\"I would change that statement to \"\"very few people can CONSISTENTLY beat the market \"\". Successful strategies will get piled into and reduce returns. Markets will pick up inefficiencies, but at the same time they do exists. Tons of interesting reading especially in regards to value. Is there a risk premium that we don't know for value? Or is it a market behavior thing?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3ffd7588e47bdcfbf842058ec577af8f", "text": "\"Answering this question is weird, because it is not really precise in what you mean. Do you want all stocks in the US? Do you want a selection of stocks according to parameters? Do you just want a cool looking graph? However, your possible misuse of the word derivative piqued my interest. Your reference to gold and silver seems to indicate that you do not know what a derivative actually is. Or what it would do in a portfolio. The straightforward way to \"\"see\"\" an efficient frontier is to do the following. For a set of stocks (in this case six \"\"randomly\"\" selected ones): library(quantmod) library(fPortfolio) library(PerformanceAnalytics) getSymbols(c(\"\"STZ\"\", \"\"RAI\"\", \"\"AMZN\"\", \"\"MSFT\"\", \"\"TWX\"\", \"\"RHT\"\"), from = \"\"2012-06-01\"\", to = \"\"2017-06-01\"\") returns &lt;- NULL tickerlist &lt;- c(\"\"STZ\"\", \"\"RAI\"\", \"\"AMZN\"\", \"\"MSFT\"\", \"\"TWX\"\", \"\"RHT\"\") for (ticker in tickerlist){ returns &lt;- cbind(returns, monthlyReturn(Ad(eval(as.symbol(ticker))))) } colnames(returns) &lt;- tickerlist returns &lt;- as.timeSeries(returns) frontier &lt;- portfolioFrontier(returns) png(\"\"frontier.png\"\", width = 800, height = 600) plot(frontier, which = \"\"all\"\") dev.off() minvariancePortfolio(returns, constraints = \"\"LongOnly\"\") Portfolio Weights: STZ RAI AMZN MSFT TWX RHT 0.1140 0.3912 0.0000 0.1421 0.1476 0.2051 Covariance Risk Budgets: STZ RAI AMZN MSFT TWX RHT 0.1140 0.3912 0.0000 0.1421 0.1476 0.2051 Target Returns and Risks: mean Cov CVaR VaR 0.0232 0.0354 0.0455 0.0360 https://imgur.com/QIxDdEI The minimum variance portfolio of these six assets has a mean return is 0.0232 and variance is 0.0360. AMZN does not get any weight in the portfolio. It kind of means that the other assets span it and it does not provide any additional diversification benefit. Let us add two ETFs that track gold and silver to the mix, and see how little difference it makes: getSymbols(c(\"\"GLD\"\", \"\"SLV\"\"), from = \"\"2012-06-01\"\", to = \"\"2017-06-01\"\") returns &lt;- NULL tickerlist &lt;- c(\"\"STZ\"\", \"\"RAI\"\", \"\"AMZN\"\", \"\"MSFT\"\", \"\"TWX\"\", \"\"RHT\"\", \"\"GLD\"\", \"\"SLV\"\") for (ticker in tickerlist){ returns &lt;- cbind(returns, monthlyReturn(Ad(eval(as.symbol(ticker))))) } colnames(returns) &lt;- tickerlist returns &lt;- as.timeSeries(returns) frontier &lt;- portfolioFrontier(returns) png(\"\"weights.png\"\", width = 800, height = 600) weightsPlot(frontier) dev.off() # Optimal weights out &lt;- minvariancePortfolio(returns, constraints = \"\"LongOnly\"\") wghts &lt;- getWeights(out) portret1 &lt;- returns%*%wghts portret1 &lt;- cbind(monthprc, portret1)[,3] colnames(portret1) &lt;- \"\"Optimal portfolio\"\" # Equal weights wghts &lt;- rep(1/8, 8) portret2 &lt;- returns%*%wghts portret2 &lt;- cbind(monthprc, portret2)[,3] colnames(portret2) &lt;- \"\"Equal weights portfolio\"\" png(\"\"performance_both.png\"\", width = 800, height = 600) par(mfrow=c(2,2)) chart.CumReturns(portret1, ylim = c(0, 2)) chart.CumReturns(portret2, ylim = c(0, 2)) chart.Drawdown(portret1, main = \"\"Drawdown\"\", ylim = c(-0.06, 0)) chart.Drawdown(portret2, main = \"\"Drawdown\"\", ylim = c(-0.06, 0)) dev.off() https://imgur.com/sBHGz7s Adding gold changes the minimum variance mean return to 0.0116 and the variance stays about the same 0.0332. You can see how the weights change at different return and variance profiles in the picture. The takeaway is that adding gold decreases the return but does not do a lot for the risk of the portfolio. You also notice that silver does not get included in the minimum variance efficient portfolio (and neither does AMZN). https://imgur.com/rXPbXau We can also compare the optimal weights to an equally weighted portfolio and see that the latter would have performed better but had much larger drawdowns. Which is because it has a higher volatility, which might be undesirable. --- Everything below here is false, but illustrative. So what about the derivative part? Let us assume you bought an out of the money call option with a strike of 50 on MSFT at the beginning of the time series and held it to the end. We need to decide on the the annualized cost-of-carry rate, the annualized rate of interest, the time to maturity is measured in years, the annualized volatility of the underlying security is proxied by the historical volatility. library(fOptions) monthprc &lt;- Ad(MSFT)[endpoints(MSFT, \"\"months\"\")] T &lt;- length(monthprc) # 60 months, 5 years vol &lt;- sd(returns$MSFT)*sqrt(12) # annualized volatility optprc &lt;- matrix(NA, 60, 1) for (t in 1:60) { s &lt;- as.numeric(monthprc[t]) optval &lt;- GBSOption(TypeFlag = \"\"c\"\", S = s, X = 50, Time = (T - t) / 12, r = 0.001, b = 0.001, sigma = vol) optprc[t] &lt;- optval@price } monthprc &lt;- cbind(monthprc, optprc) colnames(monthprc) &lt;- c(\"\"MSFT\"\", \"\"MSFTCall50\"\") MSFTCall50rets &lt;- monthlyReturn(monthprc[,2]) colnames(MSFTCall50rets) &lt;- \"\"MSFTCall50rets\"\" returns &lt;- merge(returns, MSFTCall50rets) wghts &lt;- rep(1/9, 9) portret3 &lt;- returns%*%wghts portret3 &lt;- cbind(monthprc, portret3)[,3] colnames(portret3) &lt;- \"\"Equal weights derivative portfolio\"\" png(\"\"performance_deriv.png\"\", width = 800, height = 600) par(mfrow=c(2,2)) chart.CumReturns(portret2, ylim = c(0, 4.5)) chart.CumReturns(portret3, ylim = c(0, 4.5)) chart.Drawdown(portret2, main = \"\"Drawdown\"\", ylim = c(-0.09, 0)) chart.Drawdown(portret3, main = \"\"Drawdown\"\", ylim = c(-0.09, 0)) dev.off() https://imgur.com/SZ1xrYx Even though we have a massively profitable instrument in the derivative. The portfolio analysis does not include it because of the high volatility. However, if we just use equal weighting and essentially take a massive position in the out of the money call (which would not be possible in real life), we get huge drawdowns and volatility, but the returns are almost two fold. But nobody will sell you a five year call. Others can correct any mistakes or misunderstandings in the above. It hopefully gives a starting point. Read more at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_portfolio_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Option_(finance) The imgur album: https://imgur.com/a/LoBEY\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3adfcbe31a6b9bb6731237d8769eecb4", "text": "For the mechanices/terms of stock investing, I recommend Learn to Earn by Peter Lynch. I also like The Little Book of Common Sense Investing by John Bogle. It explains why indexing is the best choice for most people. For stock picking, a good intro is The Little Book of Value Investing by Chris Brown. And then there is The Intelligent Investor by Ben Graham. IMO, this is the bible of investing.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1b108040bd2c34ec920bd9d6ec5d7bbd", "text": "My plan is that one day I can become free of the modern day monetary burdens that most adults carry with them and I can enjoy a short life without these troubles on my mind. If your objective is to achieve financial independence, and to be able to retire early from the workforce, that's a path that has been explored before. So there's plenty of sources that you might want to check. The good news is that you don't need to be an expert on security analysis or go through dozens of text books to invest wisely and enjoy the market returns. This is the Bogleheads philosophy. It's widely accepted by people in academia, and thoroughly tested. Look into it further if you want to see the rationale behind, but, to sum it up: It doesn't matter how expert you are. The idea of beating the market, that an index fund tracks, is about 'outsmarting' the rest of investors. That would be difficult, even if it was a matter of skill, but when it comes to predicting random events we're all equally clueless. *Total Expense Ratio: It gives an idea of how expensive is a given fund in terms of fees. Actively managed funds have higher TER than indexed ones. This doesn't mean there aren't index funds with, unexplainable, high TER out there.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ba932ab7edd82cd583be7d0ce813cdbc", "text": "The most significant capability that an investor must have is the knowledge on the way to look for the high dividend stocks. Through accumulating good information relating to towards the stocks that you are finding is the better way of getting the perfect and profitable investments. It is really important to learn what makes a particular stock better and superior compared to other. Traders are essential to start a complete analysis and investigation before getting their money on any business projects. Obviously, investors certainly want to have an investment that could guarantee an effective expense for a very reasonable cost the moment of getting it. The chances of crucial to invest in a market that you might be aware and qualified about. So, creating a comparison and compare in one business to a different is totally essential so as to find the high dividend stock.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "70591461ef9fce7e7b32b7b259bf14f6", "text": "The quant aspect '''''. This is the kind of math I was wondering if it existed, but now it sounds like it is much more complex in reality then optimizing by evaluating different cost of capital. Thank you for sharing", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b63dbe66dfdd7ba1c1fbc3d855852c6d", "text": "A classic text on growth stock picking is Common Stock and Uncommon Profits By Philip Fisher, with a 15 point checklist. Here is a summary of the list that you can check out.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "aa3078ec6e69e72a7a071cc61a91b20a", "text": "I'm not in the business but I've always thought that Catalyst + industry context = market beating returns. Meaning that if you know what an event means faster than everyone else you can make money. Though I don't know how you'd express that in a report. An example that comes to mind is when Japan announced they were forming a consortium, the largest in the world, to make LCD panel glass. After that I got the heck of GLW though the stock price kept going up at the time. It is like no one understood the implications.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "67678b24e00d599afb2ad4f0fb52c905", "text": "\"First, note that a share represents a % of ownership of a company. In addition to the right to vote in the management of the company [by voting on the board of directors, who hires the CEO, who hires the VPs, etc...], this gives you the right to all future value of the company after paying off expenses and debts. You will receive this money in two forms: dividends approved by the board of directors, and the final liquidation value if the company closes shop. There are many ways to attempt to determine the value of a company, but the basic theory is that the company is worth a cashflow stream equal to all future dividends + the liquidation value. So, the market's \"\"goal\"\" is to attempt to determine what that future cash flow stream is, and what the risk related to it is. Depending on who you talk to, a typical stock market has some degree of 'market efficiency'. Market efficiency is basically a comment about how quickly the market reacts to news. In a regulated marketplace with a high degree of information available, market efficiency should be quite high. This basically means that stock markets in developed countries have enough traders and enough news reporting that as soon as something public is known about a company, there are many, many people who take that information and attempt to predict the impact on future earnings of the company. For example, if Starbucks announces earnings that were 10% less than estimated previously, the market will quickly respond with people buying Starbucks shares lowering their price on the assumption that the total value of the Starbucks company has decreased. Most of this trading analysis is done by institutional investors. It isn't simply office workers selling shares on their break in the coffee room, it's mostly people in the finance industry who specialize in various areas for their firms, and work to quickly react to news like this. Is the market perfectly efficient? No. The psychology of trading [ie: people panicking, or reacting based on emotion instead of logic], as well as any inadequacy of information, means that not all news is perfectly acted upon immediately. However, my personal opinion is that for large markets, the market is roughly efficient enough that you can assume that you won't be able to read the newspaper and analyze stock news in a way better than the institutional investors. If a market is generally efficient, then it would be very difficult for a group of people to manipulate it, because someone else would quickly take advantage of that. For example, you suggest that some people might collectively 'short AMZN' [a company worth half a trillion dollars, so your nefarious group would need to have $5 Billion of capital just to trade 1% of the company]. If someone did that, the rest of the market would happily buy up AMZN at reduced prices, and the people who shorted it would be left holding the bag. However, when you deal with smaller items, some more likely market manipulation can occur. For example, when trading penny stocks, there are people who attempt to manipulate the stock price and then make a profitable trade afterwards. This takes advantage of the low amount of information available for tiny companies, as well as the limited number of institutional investors who pay attention to them. Effectively it attempts to manipulate people who are not very sophisticated. So, some manipulation can occur in markets with limited information, but for the most part prices are determined by the 'market consensus' on what the future profits of a company will be. Additional example of what a share really is: Imagine your neighbor has a treasure chest on his driveway: He gathers the neighborhood together, and asks if anyone wants to buy a % of the value he will get from opening the treasure chest. Perhaps it's a glass treasure chest, and you can mostly see inside it. You see that it is mostly gold and silver, and you weigh the chest and can see that it's about 100 lbs all together. So in your head, you take the price of gold and silver, and estimate how much gold is in the chest, and how much silver is there. You estimate that the chest has roughly $1,000,000 of value inside. So, you offer to buy 10% of the chest, for $90k [you don't want to pay exactly 10% of the value of the company, because you aren't completely sure of the value; you are taking on some risk, so you want to be compensated for that risk]. Now assume all your neighbors value the chest themselves, and they come up with the same approximate value as you. So your neighbor hands out little certificates to 10 of you, and they each say \"\"this person has a right to 10% of the value of the treasure chest\"\". He then calls for a vote from all the new 'shareholders', and asks if you want to get the money back as soon as he sells the chest, or if you want him to buy a ship and try and find more chests. It seems you're all impatient, because you all vote to fully pay out the money as soon as he has it. So your neighbor collects his $900k [$90k for each 10% share, * 10], and heads to the goldsmith to sell the chest. But before he gets there, a news report comes out that the price of gold has gone up. Because you own a share of something based on the price of gold, you know that your 10% treasure chest investment has increased in value. You now believe that your 10% is worth $105k. You put a flyer up around the neighborhood, saying you will sell your share for $105k. Because other flyers are going up to sell for about $103-$106k, it seems your valuation was mostly consistent with the market. Eventually someone driving by sees your flyer, and offers you $104k for your shares. You agree, because you want the cash now and don't want to wait for the treasure chest to be sold. Now, when the treasure chest gets sold to the goldsmith, assume it sells for $1,060,000 [turns out you underestimated the value of the company]. The person who bought your 10% share will get $106k [he gained $2k]. Your neighbor who found the chest got $900k [because he sold the shares earlier, when the value of the chest was less clear], and you got $104k, which for you was a gain of $14k above what you paid for it. This is basically what happens with shares. Buy owning a portion of the company, you have a right to get a dividend of future earnings. But, it could take a long time for you to get those earnings, and they might not be exactly what you expect. So some people do buy and sell shares to try and earn money, but the reason they are able to do that is because the shares are inherently worth something - they are worth a small % of the company and its earnings.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "58d12be977589164580793608e7d3fea", "text": "Also a layman, and I didnt read the article because it did the whole 'screw you for blocking my ads' thing. But judging from the title, I'd guess someone bought a massive amount of call options for VIX, the stock that tracks volatility in the market. Whenever the market crashes or goes through difficult times, the VIX fund prospers. The 'by october' part makes me think it was call options that he purchased: basically he paid a premium for each share (a fraction of the shares cost) for the right to buy that share at today's price, from now until october. So if the share increases in value, for each call option he has, he can buy one share at todays price, and sell it at the price it is that day. Options can catapult your profit into the next dimension but if the share decreases in value or even stays the same price, he loses everything. Vicious redditors, please correct the mistakes ive made here with utmost discrimination", "title": "" }, { "docid": "081512f0aaafbef6ec324b5e271c4821", "text": "\"Check out Professor Damodaran's website: http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/ . Tons of good stuff there to get you started. If you want more depth, he's written what is widely considered the bible on the subject of valuation: \"\"Investment Valuation\"\". DCF is very well suited to stock analysis. One doesn't need to know, or forecast the future stock price to use it. In fact, it's the opposite. Business fundamentals are forecasted to estimate the sum total of future cash flows from the company, discounted back to the present. Divide that by shares outstanding, and you have the value of the stock. The key is to remember that DCF calculations are very sensitive to inputs. Be conservative in your estimates of future revenue growth, earnings margins, and capital investment. I usually develop three forecasts: pessimistic, neutral, optimistic. This delivers a range of value instead of a false-precision single number. This may seem odd: I find the DCF invaluable, but for the process, not so much the result. The input sensitivity requires careful work, and while a range of value is useful, the real benefit comes from being required to answer the questions to build the forecast. It provides a framework to analyze a business. You're just trying to properly fill in the boxes, estimate the unguessable. To do so, you pore through the financials. Skimming, reading with a purpose. In the end you come away with a fairly deep understanding of the business, how they make money, why they'll continue to make money, etc.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "27c4e69d2f392f68687ad026b2b9ae91", "text": "The stock market's principal justification is matching investors with investment opportunities. That's only reasonably feasible with long-term investments. High frequency traders are not interested in investments, they are interested in buying cheap and selling expensive. Holding reasonably robust shares for longer binds their capital which is one reason the faster-paced business of dealing with options is popular instead. So their main manner of operation is leeching off actually occuring investments by letting the investors pay more than the recipients of the investments receive. By now, the majority of stock market business is indirect and tries guessing where the money goes rather than where the business goes. For one thing, this leads to the stock market's evaluations being largely inflated over the actual underlying committed deals happening. And as the commitment to an investment becomes rare, the market becomes more volatile and instable: it's money running in circles. Fast trading is about running in front of where the money goes, anticipating the market. But if there is no actual market to anticipate, only people running before the imagination of other people running before money, the net payout converges to zero as the ratio of serious actual investments in tangible targets declines. By and large, high frequency trading converges to a Ponzi scheme, and you try being among the winners of such a scheme. But there are a whole lot of people competing here, and essentially the net payoff is close to zero due to the large volumes in circulation as opposed to what ends up in actual tangible investments. It's a completely different game with different rules riding on the original idea of a stock market. So you have to figure out what your money should be doing according to your plans.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "11cfdfcc4a6791fcf6838952eb2bfec9", "text": "crank out expensive shares when markets are frothy Corporations go public (sell their shares for the first time) in market conditions that have a lot of liquidity (a lot of people buying shares) and when they have to make the fewest concessions to appease an investing public. When people are greedy and looking to make money without using too much due diligence. Think Netscape's IPO in 1995 or Snapchat's IPO in 2017. They also issue more shares after already being public in similar circumstances. Think Tesla's 1 billion dollar dilution in 2017. Dilution results in the 1 share owning less of the company. So in a less euphoric investing environment, share prices go down in response to dilution. See Viggle's stock for an example, if you can find a chart. issue debt Non-financial companies create bonds and sell bonds. Why is that surprising to you? Cash is cash. This is called corporate bonds or corporate debt. You can buy Apple bonds right now if you want from the same brokers that let you buy stocks. mutual fund investor Bernstein is making a cynical assessment of the markets which carries a lot of truth. Dumping shares on your mom's 401k is a running gag amongst some financial professionals. Basically mutual fund investors are typically the least well researched or most gullible market participants to sell to, influenced by brand name more than company fundamentals, who will balk at the concept of reading a prospectus. Financial professionals and CFOs have more information than their investors and can gain extended advantages because of this. Just take the emotions out of it and make objective assessments.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8fd096c812c0ad78c3fd458f3ed8988e", "text": "In fact markets are not efficient and participants are not rational. That is why we have booms and busts in markets. Emotions and psychology play a role when investors and/or traders make decisions, sometimes causing them to behave in unpredictable or irrational ways. That is why stocks can be undervalued or overvalued compared to their true value. Also, different market participants may put a different true value on a stock (depending on their methods of analysis and the information they use to base their analysis on). This is why there are always many opportunities to profit (or lose your money) in liquid markets. Doing your research, homework, or analysis can be related to fundamental analysis, technical analysis, or a combination of the two. For example, you could use fundamental analysis to determine what to buy and then use technical analysis to determine when to buy. To me, doing your homework means to get yourself educated, to have a plan, to do your analysis (both FA and TA), to invest or trade according to your plan and to have a risk management strategy in place. Most people are too lazy to do their homework so will pay someone else to do it for them or they will just speculate (on the latest hot tip) and lose most of their money.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2cf6037c68fe46a7914b798417e10e48", "text": "Something that introduces the vocabulary and treats the reader like an intelligent individual? It's a bit overkill for 'retirement', but Yale has a free online course in Financial Markets. It's very light on math, but does a good job establishing jargon and its history. It covers most of the things you'd buy or sell in financial markets, and is presented by Nobel Prize winner Robert Schiller. This particular series was filmed in 2007, so it also offers a good historical perspective of the start of the subprime collapse. There's a number of high profile guest speakers as well. I would encourage you to think critically about their speeches though. If you research what's happened to them after that lecture, it's quite entertaining: one IPO'd a 'private equity' firm that underperformed the market as a whole, another hedge fund manager bought an airline with a partner firm that was arrested for running a ponzi scheme six months later. The reading list in the syllabus make a pretty good introduction to the field, but keep in mind they're for institutional investors not your 401(k).", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "662b511141c68f3a8cd19f8578583ac5", "text": "You definitely do not need human interaction to open an account at Schwab. You just need to provide a social security number and US drivers license. See http://www.schwab.com/public/schwab/investing/accounts_products/accounts/brokerage_account You can do it online or through the mail. They usually have some questions about your level of experience with investing. They are required to ask these questions to ensure that you don't get confused and put your money in inappropriate investments.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "b58031e5b0659c8bfa666d2c3326e67d", "text": "I have made a few contacts but generally we are hired precisely because the client doesn't want to take on full time staff. I need to make some contacts in the hedge fund or the trading business but I can't figure out how.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "feea0eff339a0989ce65653ff1c2e360", "text": "how many transactions per year do you intend? Mixing the funds is an issue for the reasons stated. But. I have a similar situation managing money for others, and the solution was a power of attorney. When I sign into my brokerage account, I see these other accounts and can trade them, but the owners get their own tax reporting.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f3ca94d4bc0bef19aabce03c94cbe1f3", "text": "There are still human brokers on the floor primarily due to tradition. Their numbers have certainly dwindled, however, and it's reasonable to expect the number of floor traders to decrease even more as electronic trading continues to grow. A key reason for human brokers, however, is due to privacy. Certain private exchanges such as dark pools maintain privacy for high profile clients and institutional investors, and human brokers are needed to execute anonymous deals in these venues. Even in this region, however, technology is supplanting the need for brokers. I don't believe there is any human-broker-free stock exchange, but Nasdaq and other traditionally OTC (over the counter) exchanges are as close as it gets since they never even had trading floors.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0b8a316de1395303b95c0c860191c913", "text": "High frequency trades are intra day. The would buy a stock for 100 and sell for 100.10 multiple times. So If you start with 100 in your broker account, you buy something [it takes 2-3 days to settle], you sell for 100.10 [it takes 2-3 days to settle]. You again buy something for 100. It is the net value of both buys and sells that you need to look at. Trading on Margin Accounts. Most brokers offer Margin Accounts. The exact leverage ratios varies. What this means is that if you start with 10 [or 15 or 25] in your broker you can buy stock of 100. Of course legally you wont own the stock unless you pay the broker balance, etc.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "87050d8b055c683293efe139354a09a5", "text": "I was wondering what relations are between brokerage companies and exchanges? Are brokers representing investors to trade on exchanges? Yes...but a broker may also buy and sell stocks for his own account. This is called broker-delaer firm. For individual investors, what are some cons and pros of trading on the exchanges directly versus indirectly via brokers? Doesn't the former save the investors any costs/expenses paid to the brokers? Yes, but to trade directly on an exchange, you need to register with them. That costs money and only a limited number of people can register I believe. Note that some (or all?) exchanges have their websites where I think trading can be done electronically, such as NASDAQ and BATS? Can almost all stocks be found and traded on almost every exchange? In other words, is it possible that a popular stock can only be found and traded on one exchange, but not found on the other exchange? If needed to be more specific, I am particularly interested in the U.S. case,and for example, Apple's stock. Yes, it is very much possible with smaller companies. Big companies are usually on multiple exchanges. What are your advices for choosing exchange and choosing brokerage companies? What exchanges and brokerage companies do you recommend? For brokerage companies, a beginner can go with discount broker. For sophisticated investors can opt for full service brokers. Usually your bank will have a brokerage firm. For exchanges, it depends...if you are in US, you should send to the US exchanges. IF you wish to send to other exchanges in other countries, you should check with the broker about that.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9241f9faa0b1a9ff0301a2068455770d", "text": "In many places there are legal requirements to do so, essentially made to prevent brokers from selling high-risk products as if they were deposits with guaranteed safety of your funds. There also may be prohibitions on offering high-risk/high-return products to beginner customers, e.g. requiring accredited investor status claiming that yes, you really know how this works and are informed of the involved risks or you're not allowed to invest in that product. Making untrue claims of being not a beginner may limit your options if your broker does cheat you in some manner, as it gives them a solid argument that you confirmed that you understand how their pump-and-dump scheme works and are yourself responsible for losing your money to them.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0c3ab042078e5972d070cb6885436956", "text": "In theory this could lead to problematic investments being made, since no individual robot would know what the others are doing. For instance, one robot might decide to sell a certain stock or fund for tax loss harvesting purposes, but a different robot might buy the fund the next day for its own reasons. This would count as a wash sale and would affect your tax liability, but neither robot would be aware of it, so they probably wouldn't notify you of it correctly, so you might not pay the correct tax, which would clearly be bad. Similar problems could arise, for instance, if the different robots have different rebalancing strategies, leading to an overall allocation that isn't optimal. In general the idea of these services is that the robots do complicated things that can save you (or make you) money, and they hide this complexity from you. Without knowing exactly what they're doing, it's difficult to ensure that the aggregate action of multiple robots would still be beneficial; they could be canceling each other out, or worse.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "87f21455d6e774be133fd370a9b37474", "text": "\"Think about it this way: prop desks wouldn't exist if trading didn't work. Part of trading is adapting. That includes algos, manipulation, housing crashes, etc. On a practical side, you have to find a way to make money or else you won't last long. I have heard that it takes longer for new traders to be protifable, but that's second/third hand. Personally, my first few years were tough, but I still think it's better to try to achieve something and fail than to be content in mediocrity. Despite wanting to quit a couple times and thinking, \"\"I should be doing better\"\", I stuck through it and it's worked out pretty well.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1acd982f856bbe19b66802f7b507ad10", "text": "I definitely want it, all of my cash that i've accumulated goes into my brokerage but I just wanted to check that in can be done. I just wanted to see if anyone knew anyone personally or anything like that because most of the time it's people e-bragging or bullshitting to make them seem like something. I also wanted to see if it is still feasible with all of the algo trading and stuff that has been dominating the market versus an individual trader. Thanks for your reply though, I like the analogy a lot.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b235004e22e3e1e2bc35f1b4309da30e", "text": "\"Brokers need to assess your level of competency to ensure that they don't allow you to \"\"bite off more than you can chew\"\" and find yourself in a bad situation. Some brokers ask you to rate your skills, others ask you how long you've been trading, it always varies based on broker. I use IB and they gave me a questionairre about a wide range of instruments, my skill level, time spent trading, trades per year, etc. Many brokers will use your self-reported experience to choose what types of instruments you can trade. Some will only allow you to start with stocks and restrict access to forex, options, futures, etc. until you ask for readiness and, for some brokers, even pass a test of knowledge. Options are very commonly restricted so that you can only go long on an option when you own the underlying stock when you are a \"\"newbie\"\" and scale out from there. Many brokers adopt a four-tiered approach for options where only the most skilled traders can write naked options, as seen here. It's important to note that all of this information is self-reported and you are not legally bound to answer honestly in any way. If, for example, you are well aware of the risks of writing naked options and want to try it despite never trading one before, there is nothing stopping you from saying you've traded options for 10 years and be given the privilege by your broker. Of course, they're just looking out for your best interest, but you are by no means forced into the scheme if you do not wish to be.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9c8e35e35c5f8ae1c2031f9cc2fee911", "text": "While you are correct that no broker-dealer ever qualifies for FDIC and it could be sufficient for customers to know that general rule, for broker-dealers located at or 'networked' with a bank -- and nowadays many probably most are -- these explicit statements that non-bank investments are not guaranteed by the bank or FDIC and may lose principal (often stated as 'may lose value') are REQUIRED; see http://finra.complinet.com/en/display/display_main.html?rbid=2403&element_id=9093 .", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b8689edb31a7e0c75924dee7d22a68e8", "text": "As a relatively recent nonimmigrant visa holder (O1), I was able to open an ETrade brokerage account without problems. I have full tax residence in the USA so have an SSN, and a credit history so it was no problem. Later, as a greencard holder, I opened IRA accounts with them, too. Again, there were no issues as I had all the information that the IRS paperwork required at hand.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1e5211b469edeb470c91b8271c090ca9", "text": "\"TDAmeritrade, an online stock broker, provides banking services within their brokerage accounts. The service offers all of what you are looking for. HOWEVER, this service is only available for free with their \"\"Apex\"\" qualification. Here is a tariff of their fees and services.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9c2251b56b8703b52775e3a9b8dfb171", "text": "If the brokerage account holds US assets, such as the stock of US companies, then it may be taxable under some conditions. The rules are complex and depend on the nationality of the individuals, because the results may be affected by tax treaties between the United States and whatever country the person is from.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5adcb66b7facb23889a1bb9856a5e2d9", "text": "\"It sounds like maybe you want an \"\"investment club\"\". As defined by the SEC: An investment club is a group of people who pool their money to make investments. Usually, investment clubs are organized as partnerships and, after the members study different investments, the group decides to buy or sell based on a majority vote of the members. Club meetings may be educational and each member may actively participate in investment decisions. These \"\"typically\"\" do not need to register: Investment clubs usually do not have to register, or register the offer and sale of their own membership interests, with the SEC. But since each investment club is unique, each club should decide if it needs to register and comply with securities laws. There's more information from the SEC here: http://www.sec.gov/investor/pubs/invclub.htm The taxes depend on how you organized the club, i.e. if you organize as a partnership, I believe that you will be taxed as a partnership. (Not 100% sure.) Some online brokerages have special accounts specifically for investment clubs. Check around.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "7357993aa3e3e8e6d746463fbc6fefa2", "text": "Shares often come associated with a set of rights, such as ability to vote in the outcome of the company. Some shares do not have this right, however. With your ability to vote in the outcome of the company, you could help dictate that the company paid dividends at a point in time. Or many other varieties of outcomes. Also, if there were any liquidity events due to demand of the shares, this is typically at a much higher price than the shares are now when the company is private/closely held.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "81d3eb9c34cca8052b7e5312e0a28964", "text": "If that condition is permanent -- the stock will NEVER pay dividends and you will NEVER be able to sell it -- then yes, it sounds to me like this is a worthless piece of paper. If there is some possibility that the stock will pay dividends in the future, or that a market will exist to sell it, then you are making a long-term investment. It all depends on how likely it is that the situation will change. If the investment is small, maybe it's worth it.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "d193462c2812d839a5c8e4ab18f9b52d", "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.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7da8771edbf816b4663db5e5ab68588d", "text": "Stock basically implies your ownership in the company. If you own 1% ownership in a company, the value of your stake becomes equal to 1% of the valuation of the entire company. Dividends are basically disbursal of company's profits to its shareholders. By holding stocks of a company, you become eligible to receiving dividends proportional to your ownership in the company. Dividends though are not guaranteed, as the company may incur losses or the management may decide to use the cash for future growth instead of disbursing it to the shareholders. For example, let's say a company called ABC Inc, is listed on NYSE and has a total of 1 million shares issued. Let's say if you purchase 100 stocks of ABC, your ownership in ABC will become Let's say that the share price at the time of purchase was $10 each. Total Investment = Stock Price * Number of Stocks Purchased = $10 * 100 = $1,000 Now, let's say that the company declares a dividend of $1 per share. Then, Dividend Yield = Dividend/Stock Price = $1/$10 = 10% If one has to draw analogy with other banking products, one can think of stock and dividend as Fixed Deposits (analogous to stock) and the interest earned on the Fixed Deposit (analogous to dividend).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9a45963e72902ae54c1c2fc3a481ed44", "text": "Stocks represent partial ownership of the company. So, if you owned 51% of the stock of the company (and therefore 51% of the company itself), you could decide to liquidate all the assets of the company, and you would be entitled to 51% of the proceeds from that sale. In the example above, it would have to be Common Stock, as preferred stock does not confer ownership. *In a situation where it is not possible to buy 51% or more of the company (for example, it's not for sale), this is not possible, so the value of the stock could be much less.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0c6d9c87fc60a8c5f72ee0140b593d35", "text": "\"A stock, at its most basic, is worth exactly what someone else will pay to buy it right now (or in the near future), just like anything else of value. However, what someone's willing to pay for it is typically based on what the person can get from it. There are a couple of ways to value a stock. The first way is on expected earnings per share, most of would normally (but not always) be paid in dividends. This is a metric that can be calculated based on the most recently reported earnings, and can be estimated based on news about the company or the industry its in (or those of suppliers, likely buyers, etc) to predict future earnings. Let's say the stock price is exactly $100 right now, and you buy one share. In one quarter, the company is expected to pay out $2 per share in dividends. That is a 2% ROI realized in 3 months. If you took that $2 and blew it on... coffee, maybe, or you stuffed it in your mattress, you'd realize a total gain of $8 in one year, or in ROI terms an annual rate of 8%. However, if you reinvested the money, you'd be making money on that money, and would have a little more. You can calculate the exact percentage using the \"\"future value\"\" formula. Conversely, if you wanted to know what you should pay, given this level of earnings per share, to realize a given rate of return, you can use the \"\"present value\"\" formula. If you wanted a 9% return on your money, you'd pay less for the stock than its current value, all other things being equal. Vice-versa if you were happy with a lesser rate of return. The current rate of return based on stock price and current earnings is what the market as a whole is willing to tolerate. This is how bonds are valued, based on a desired rate of return by the market, and it also works for stocks, with the caveat that the dividends, and what you'll get back at the \"\"end\"\", are no longer constant as they are with a bond. Now, in your case, the company doesn't pay dividends. Ever. It simply retains all the earnings it's ever made, reinvesting them into doing new things or more things. By the above method, the rate of return from dividends alone is zero, and so the future value of your investment is whatever you paid for it. People don't like it when the best case for their money is that it just sits there. However, there's another way to think of the stock's value, which is it's more core definition; a share of the company itself. If the company is profitable, and keeps all this profit, then a share of the company equals, in part, a share of that retained earnings. This is very simplistic, but if the company's assets are worth 1 billion dollars, and it has one hundred million shares of stock, each share of stock is worth $10, because that's the value of that fraction of the company as divided up among all outstanding shares. If the company then reports earnings of $100 million, the value of the company is now 1.1 billion, and its stock should go up to $11 per share, because that's the new value of one ten-millionth of the company's value. Your ROI on this stock is $1, in whatever time period the reporting happens (typically quarterly, giving this stock a roughly 4% APY). This is a totally valid way to value stocks and to shop for them; it's very similar to how commodities, for instance gold, are bought and sold. Gold never pays you dividends. Doesn't give you voting rights either. Its value at any given time is solely what someone else will pay to have it. That's just fine with a lot of people right now; gold's currently trading at around $1,700 an ounce, and it's been the biggest moneymaker in our economy since the bottom fell out of the housing market (if you'd bought gold in 2008, you would have more than doubled your money in 4 years; I challenge you to find anything else that's done nearly as well over the same time). In reality, a combination of both of these valuation methods are used to value stocks. If a stock pays dividends, then each person gets money now, but because there's less retained earnings and thus less change in the total asset value of the company, the actual share price doesn't move (much). If a stock doesn't pay dividends, then people only get money when they cash out the actual stock, but if the company is profitable (Apple, BH, etc) then one share should grow in value as the value of that small fraction of the company continues to grow. Both of these are sources of ROI, and both are seen in a company that will both retain some earnings and pay out dividends on the rest.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ba22f2742f109ebad589fa5564b85d94", "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.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "226d14004f8da97cc73ed47b9a00ca7c", "text": "The shareholders can't all re-invest their dividends -- it's not possible. Paying a dividend doesn't issue any new shares, so unless some of the existing shareholders sell their shares instead of re-investing, there aren't any shares available for the shareholders to re-invest in.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f202937ec26c18b06aa1ba3356b006ad", "text": "Yes, somebody could buy the shares, receive the dividend, and then sell the shares back. However, the price he would get when he sells the shares back is, ignoring other reasons for the price to change, exactly the amount he paid minus the dividend.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "888da6a98abd6f62d8e73f2e77d47203", "text": "Suppose the price didn't drop on the ex-dividend date. Then people wanting to make a quick return on their money would buy shares the day before, collect the dividend, and then sell them on the ex-dividend date. But all those people trying to buy on the day before would push the price up, and they would push the price down trying to sell on the date.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dde8f7266f2819fb673198020fc362f7", "text": "\"A dividend is one method of returning value to shareholders, some companies pay richer dividends than others; some companies don't typically pay a dividend. Understand that shareholders are owners of a company. When you buy a stock you now own a portion (albeit an extremely small portion) of that company. It is up to you to determine whether holding stock in a company is worth the risk inherent to equity investing over simply holding treasury notes or some other comparable no risk investment like bank savings or CDs. Investing isn't really intended to change your current life. A common phrase is \"\"investing in tomorrow.\"\" It's about holding on to money so you'll have it for tomorrow. It's about putting your money to work for you today, so you'll have it tomorrow. It's all about the future, not your current life.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3579b4d63ec37eb5c5d6bd69bc16753a", "text": "This is called the gordon growth model (or dividend discount model). This is one way to value a stock, but in practice no one uses it because the assumptions are that companies will return value to investors solely via regular dividends, and that the growth rate and the required rate of return from investors are constants; among other issues.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "88bad5cf03d3a2c8d04785fcf5589fec", "text": "\"One way to value companies is to use a Dividend discount model. In substance, it consists in estimating future dividends and calculating their present value. So it is a methodology which considers that an equity is similar to a bond and estimates its current value based on future cash flows. A company may not be paying dividends now, but because its future earnings prospects are good may pay some in the future. In that case the DDM model will give a non-zero value to that stock. If on the other hand you think a company won't ever make any profits and therefore never pay any dividends, then it's probably worth 0! Take Microsoft as an example - it currently pays ~3% dividend per annum. The stock has been listed since 1986 and yet it did not pay any dividends until 2003. But the stock has been rising regularly since the beginning because people had \"\"priced in\"\" the fact that there was a high chance that the company would become very profitable - which proved true in the long term (+60,000% including dividends since the IPO!).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "57ae1dabaed20e2a1c7a8d770aa3941a", "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.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7fd41a325f0fb649082ee85699cff9a3", "text": "First, you need to understand that not every investor's goals are the same. Some investors are investing for income. They want to invest in a profitable company and use the profit from the company as income. If that investor invests only in stocks that do not pay a dividend, the only way he can realize income is to sell his investment. But he can invest in companies that pay a regular dividend and use that income while keeping his investment intact. Imagine this: Let's say I own a profitable company, and I offer to sell you part ownership in that company. However, I tell you this upfront: no matter how much profit our company makes, you will never get a penny from me. You will be getting a stock certificate - a piece of paper - and that's it. You can watch the company grow, and you can tell yourself you own it, but the only way you will personally benefit from your investment would be to sell your piece to someone else, who would also never see a penny in profit. Does that sound like a good investment? The fact of the matter is, stocks in companies that do not distribute dividends do have value, but this value is largely based on the potential of profits/dividends at some point in the future. If a company vows never ever to pay dividends, why would anyone invest? An investment would be more of a donation (like Kickstarter) at that point. A company that pays dividends is possibly past their growth stage. That doesn't necessarily mean that they have stopped growing altogether, but remember that an expansion project for any company does not automatically yield a good result. If a company does not have a good opportunity currently for a growth project, I as an investor would rather get a dividend than have the company blow all the profit on a ill-fated gamble.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2c22c52e4aaebff770a0c2e1acd89cf3", "text": "\"A share of stock is a share of the underlying business. If one believes the underlying business will grow in value, then one would expect the stock price to increase commensurately. Participants in the stock market, in theory, assign value based on some combination of factors like capital assets, cash on hand, revenue, cash flow, profits, dividends paid, and a bunch of other things, including \"\"intangibles\"\" like customer loyalty. A dividend stream may be more important to one investor than another. But, essentially, non-dividend paying companies (and, thus, their shares) are expected by their owners to become more valuable over time, at which point they may be sold for a profit. EDIT TO ADD: Let's take an extremely simple example of company valuation: book value, or the sum of assets (capital, cash, etc) and liabilities (debt, etc). Suppose our company has a book value of $1M today, and has 1 million shares outstanding, and so each share is priced at $1. Now, suppose the company, over the next year, puts another $1M in the bank through its profitable operation. Now, the book value is $2/share. Suppose further that the stock price did not go up, so the market capitalization is still $1M, but the underlying asset is worth $2M. Some extremely rational market participant should then immediately use his $1M to buy up all the shares of the company for $1M and sell the underlying assets for their $2M value, for an instant profit of 100%. But this rarely happens, because the existing shareholders are also rational, can read the balance sheet, and refuse to sell their shares unless they get something a lot closer to $2--likely even more if they expect the company to keep getting bigger. In reality, the valuation of shares is obviously much more complicated, but this is the essence of it. This is how one makes money from growth (as opposed to income) stocks. You are correct that you get no income stream while you hold the asset. But you do get money from selling, eventually.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "36b6507f1754160d2ab84eaad0e963a6", "text": "\"A non-trading stock or non-marketable security or unlisted security is one that does not trade continually on an exchange. For tax purposes, this can mean a whole new ball of wax which I would prefer the experts address with an edit to this answer or a new answer. For financial accounting purposes, this is when, say, one owns shares in an unlisted corporation and should be treated very carefully less one delude oneself. For trading stock, the value can be known immediately by checking any valid data provider's price and marking to market. For non-trading stock, the value has to be \"\"marked to model\"\". This can get one into Enron sized trouble. In this case, it's best to either leave the value of the stock at the purchase price and recognize gains upon sale, use a price from another honest transaction by third parties which are most likely difficult to attain, or to use some shorthand measure like applying the market P/E. Be wary of strangely high figures for value from the purchase price by using a market average, and don't throw away the shares just yet if a strangely low one arises. This method can lead to strange results.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "9349f71c3fa6137dd26bb82e45f19afe", "text": "Typically you give a loan to the company from yourself as a private person, and when the company makes money the company pays it back to you. Then the company pays for all the expenses with the money from the loan. Even if you don't want a business account yet, you can probably ask your bank for a second account (mine in the UK did that without any problems).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1b9e4a98fe42a45581fab09edb4e4eee", "text": "You don't even need to formally loan the LLC any money. You pay for the setup costs out of pocket, and then once the LLC is formed, you reimburse yourself (just like with an expense report). Essentially you submit an expense report to the LLC for the startup costs, and the LLC pays out a check to you, categorized for the startup expenses.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e1208e4de07e5a70118a6b83770ea03e", "text": "\"If you are using software like QuickBooks (or even just using spreadsheets or tracking this without software) use two Equity accounts, something like \"\"Capital Contributions\"\" and \"\"Capital Distributions\"\" When you write a personal check to the company, the money goes into the company's checking account and also increases the Capital Contribution account in accordance with double-entry accounting practices. When the company has enough retained earnings to pay you back, you use the Capital Distributions equity account and just write yourself a check. You can also make general journal entries every year to zero out or balance your two capital accounts with Retained Earnings, which (I think) is an automatically generated Equity account in QuickBooks. If this sounds too complex, you could also just use a single \"\"Capital Contributions and Distributions\"\" equity account for your contributions and distributions.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e3cd89c0d64142d65db6089237dac981", "text": "How do I account for this in the bookkeeping? Here is an example below: This is how you would accurately depict contributions made by an owner for a business. If you would want to remove money from your company, or pay yourself back, this would be called withdrawals. It would be the inverse of the first journal entry with cash on the credit side and withdrawals on the debited side (as it is an expense). You and your business are not the same thing. You are two different entities. This is why you are taxed as two different entities. When you (the owner) make contributions, it is considered to be the cash of the business. From here you will make these expenses against the business and not yourself. Good luck,", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3d7f9fe5894143a3984af1d6e43a76a0", "text": "\"If you have a single member LLC there is no need to separate expenses in this way since it is simply treated as part of the owner's normal tax returns. This is the way I've been operating. Owner of Single-Member LLC If a single-member LLC does not elect to be treated as a corporation, the LLC is a \"\"disregarded entity,\"\" and the LLC's activities should be reflected on its owner's federal tax return. If the owner is an individual, the activities of the LLC will generally be reflected on: Form 1040 Schedule C, Profit or Loss from Business (Sole Proprietorship) (PDF) Form 1040 Schedule E, Supplemental Income or Loss (PDF) Form 1040 Schedule F, Profit or Loss from Farming (PDF) An individual owner of a single-member LLC that operates a trade or business is subject to the tax on net earnings from self employment in the same manner as a sole proprietorship. If the single-member LLC is owned by a corporation or partnership, the LLC should be reflected on its owner's federal tax return as a division of the corporation or partnership. https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/single-member-limited-liability-companies\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "662573bb6e4c7fa0c1481bfb27440a7f", "text": "An LLC is a pass-through entity in the USA, so profits and losses flow through to the individual's taxes. Thus an LLC has a separate TIN but the pass-through property greatly simplifies tax filings, as compared to the complicated filings required by C-corps.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "ac9363665b6f3b6c63d77f667d33cd17", "text": "\"The point is that you need to figure out when a \"\"business expense\"\" is actually just a personal purchase. Otherwise you could very easily just start a business and mark all of your personal purchases as business expenses, so you never have to pay income taxes because you're handling all of your money through the untaxed corporation.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3f362f2a26d64930517bf1086d30cb0e", "text": "\"You will need to set up accounts in your chart of accounts for each of the partners. These are equity accounts where you can track your contributions, share of the profits and losses, and distributions. You're going to have to go back into the beginning years to get this right. I'm not sure what you mean by a \"\"Built-in function\"\". All the accounting software I'm familiar with requires data entry of some kind. You need to post your contributions and distributions to the correct accounts, and close properly at year end. You were indeed legally considered a partnership as soon as you started a for-profit business venture together. It's a bug in the legal system that a written partnership agreement is not necessarily required - you can form a partnership unknowingly. (BTW, a partnership actually is pretty far off from a sole proprietorship, legally and taxwise - the change from one person to two is major. It's the change from two to three or four or more that's incremental ;) I know you said you didn't want to consult a professional, but I have to say that I think it's worth the money to get your books set up by someone who has experience and can show you how to do it. And get a separate bank account for the partnership, if you haven't done so already. And check with your state to see if there are any requirements regarding partnerships. Hope this helps, Mariette IRS Circular 230 Notice: Please note that any tax advice contained in this communication is not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by anyone to avoid penalties that may be imposed under federal tax law.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7348a5a39e5d09a5d84942986787e34e", "text": "\"Disclaimer: This should go without saying, but this answer is definitely an opinion. (I'm pretty sure my current accountant would agree with this answer, and I'm also pretty sure that one of my past accountants would disagree.) When I started my own small business over 10 years ago I asked this very same question for pretty much every purchase I made that would be used by both the business and me personally. I was young(er) and naive then and I just assumed everything was deductible until my accountant could prove otherwise. At some point you need to come up with some rules of thumb to help make sense of it, or else you'll drive yourself and your accountant bonkers. Here is one of the rules I like to use in this scenario: If you never would have made the purchase for personal use, and if you must purchase it for business use, and if using it for personal use does not increase the expense to the business, it can be fully deducted by the business even if you sometimes use it personally too. Here are some example implementations of this rule: Note about partial expenses: I didn't mention partial deductions above because I don't feel it applies when the criteria of my \"\"rule of thumb\"\" is met. Note that the IRS states: Personal versus Business Expenses Generally, you cannot deduct personal, living, or family expenses. However, if you have an expense for something that is used partly for business and partly for personal purposes, divide the total cost between the business and personal parts. You can deduct the business part. At first read that makes it sound like some of my examples above would need to be split into partial calulations, however, I think the key distinction is that you would never have made the purchase for personal use, and that the cost to the business does not increase because of allowing personal use. Partial deductions come into play when you have a shared car, or office, or something where the business cost is increased due to shared use. In general, I try to avoid anything that would be a partial expense, though I do allow my business to reimburse me for mileage when I lend it my personal car for business use.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d51b2368c61b4de2a5d784f5ba5fdea4", "text": "\"Like you said, it's important to keep your personal assets and company assets completely separate to maintain the liability protection of the LLC. I'd recommend getting the business bank account right from the beginning. My wife formed an LLC last year (also as a pass-through sole proprietorship for tax purposes), and we were able to get a small business checking account from Savings Institute and Trust that has no fees (at least for the relatively low quantity of transactions we'll be doing). We wrote it a personal check for startup capital, and since then, the LLC has paid all of its own bills out of its checking account (with associated debit card). Getting the account opened took less than an hour of sitting at the bank. Without knowing exactly where you are in Kentucky, I note that Googling \"\"kentucky small business checking\"\" and visiting a few banks' web sites provided several promising options for no-fee business checking.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b2c2a2438b925a7ca203cf52bfabeaf3", "text": "You really shouldn't be using class tracking to keep business and personal operations separate. I'm pretty sure the IRS and courts frown upon this, and you're probably risking losing any limited liability you may have. And for keeping separate parts of the business separate, like say stores in a franchise, one approach would be subaccounts. Messy, I'm sure.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ac8916af592d24f229674bf1f89c93c2", "text": "If this is something you plan to continue doing it would make sense to create it as it's own business entity and then to get non-profit status eg: 501c3. Otherwise I'm pretty sure you have to think of it as YOU receiving the money as a sole proprietor - and file a couple more tax forms at the end of the year. I think it's a Schedule C. So essentially if you bring in $10,000, then you spend that $10,000 as legit business expenses for your venture your schedule C would show no profit and wouldn't pay taxes on it. BUT, you do have to file that form. Operating this way could have legal implications should something happen and you get sued. Having the proper business entity setup could help in that situation.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c93f3024d8d4bde48399c1dabe42032b", "text": "\"I've done various side work over the years -- computer consulting, writing, and I briefly had a video game company -- so I've gone through most of this. Disclaimer: I have never been audited, which may mean that everything I put on my tax forms looked plausible to the IRS and so is probably at least generally right, but it also means that the IRS has never put their stamp of approval on my tax forms. So that said ... 1: You do not need to form an LLC to be able to claim business expenses. Whether you have any expenses or not, you will have to complete a schedule C. On this form are places for expenses in various categories. Note that the categories are the most common type of expenses, there's an \"\"other\"\" space if you have something different. If you have any property that is used both for the business and also for personal use, you must calculate a business use percentage. For example if you bought a new printer and 60% of the time you use it for the business and 40% of the time you use it for personal stuff, then 60% of the cost is tax deductible. In general the IRS expects you to calculate the percentage based on amount of time used for business versus personal, though you are allowed to use other allocation formulas. Like for a printer I think you'd get away with number of pages printed for each. But if the business use is not 100%, you must keep records to justify the percentage. You can't just say, \"\"Oh, I think business use must have been about 3/4 of the time.\"\" You have to have a log where you write down every time you use it and whether it was business or personal. Also, the IRS is very suspicious of business use of cars and computers, because these are things that are readily used for personal purposes. If you own a copper mine and you buy a mine-boring machine, odds are you aren't going to take that home to dig shafts in your backyard. But a computer can easily be used to play video games or send emails to friends and relatives and lots of things that have nothing to do with a business. So if you're going to claim a computer or a car, be prepared to justify it. You can claim office use of your home if you have one or more rooms or designated parts of a room that are used \"\"regularly and exclusively\"\" for business purposes. That is, if you turn the family room into an office, you can claim home office expenses. But if, like me, you sit on the couch to work but at other times you sit on the couch to watch TV, then the space is not used \"\"exclusively\"\" for business purposes. Also, the IRS is very suspicious of home office deductions. I've never tried to claim it. It's legal, just make sure you have all your ducks in a row if you claim it. Skip 2 for the moment. 3: Yes, you must pay taxes on your business income. If you have not created an LLC or a corporation, then your business income is added to your wage income to calculate your taxes. That is, if you made, say, $50,000 salary working for somebody else and $10,000 on your side business, then your total income is $60,000 and that's what you pay taxes on. The total amount you pay in income taxes will be the same regardless of whether 90% came from salary and 10% from the side business or the other way around. The rates are the same, it's just one total number. If the withholding on your regular paycheck is not enough to cover the total taxes that you will have to pay, then you are required by law to pay estimated taxes quarterly to make up the difference. If you don't, you will be required to pay penalties, so you don't want to skip on this. Basically you are supposed to be withholding from yourself and sending this in to the government. It's POSSIBLE that this won't be an issue. If you're used to getting a big refund, and the refund is more than what the tax on your side business will come to, then you might end up still getting a refund, just a smaller one. But you don't want to guess about this. Get the tax forms and figure out the numbers. I think -- and please don't rely on this, check on it -- that the law says that you don't pay a penalty if the total tax that was withheld from your paycheck plus the amount you paid in estimated payments is more than the tax you owed last year. So like lets say that this year -- just to make up some numbers -- your employer withheld $4,000 from your paychecks. At the end of the year you did your taxes and they came to $3,000, so you got a $1,000 refund. This year your employer again withholds $4,000 and you paid $0 in estimated payments. Your total tax on your salary plus your side business comes to $4,500. You owe $500, but you won't have to pay a penalty, because the $4,000 withheld is more than the $3,000 that you owed last year. But if next year you again don't make estimated payment, so you again have $4,000 withheld plus $0 estimated and then you owe $5,000 in taxes, you will have to pay a penalty, because your withholding was less than what you owed last year. To you had paid $500 in estimated payments, you'd be okay. You'd still owe $500, but you wouldn't owe a penalty, because your total payments were more than the previous year's liability. Clear as mud? Don't forget that you probably will also owe state income tax. If you have a local income tax, you'll owe that too. Scott-McP mentioned self-employment tax. You'll owe that, too. Note that self-employment tax is different from income tax. Self employment tax is just social security tax on self-employed people. You're probably used to seeing the 7-whatever-percent it is these days withheld from your paycheck. That's really only half your social security tax, the other half is not shown on your pay stub because it is not subtracted from your salary. If you're self-employed, you have to pay both halves, or about 15%. You file a form SE with your income taxes to declare it. 4: If you pay your quarterly estimated taxes, well the point of \"\"estimated\"\" taxes is that it's supposed to be close to the amount that you will actually owe next April 15. So if you get it at least close, then you shouldn't owe a lot of money in April. (I usually try to arrange my taxes so that I get a modest refund -- don't loan the government a lot of money, but don't owe anything April 15 either.) Once you take care of any business expenses and taxes, what you do with the rest of the money is up to you, right? Though if you're unsure of how to spend it, let me know and I'll send you the address of my kids' colleges and you can donate it to their tuition fund. I think this would be a very worthy and productive use of your money. :-) Back to #2. I just recently acquired a financial advisor. I can't say what a good process for finding one is. This guy is someone who goes to my church and who hijacked me after Bible study one day to make his sales pitch. But I did talk to him about his fees, and what he told me was this: If I have enough money in an investment account, then he gets a commission from the investment company for bringing the business to them, and that's the total compensation he gets from me. That commission comes out of the management fees they charge, and those management fees are in the same ballpark as the fees I was paying for private investment accounts, so basically he is not costing me anything. He's getting his money from the kickbacks. He said that if I had not had enough accumulated assets, he would have had to charge me an hourly fee. I didn't ask how much that was. Whew, hadn't meant to write such a long answer!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "83ccfe7a14924f2312a884665c1db75d", "text": "\"For practical purposes, I would strongly suggest that you do create a separate account for each business you may have that is used only for business purposes, and use it for all of your business income and expenses. This will allow you to get an accurate picture of whether you are making money or not, what your full expenses really are, how much of your personal money you have put into the business, and is an easy way to keep business taxes separate. You will also be able to get a fairly quick read on what your profits are without doing much accounting by looking at the account balance less future taxes and expenses, and less any personal money you've put into the account. Check out this thread from Paypal about setting up a \"\"child\"\" account that is linked to your personal account and can be set up to autosweep payments into your main account, should you like. You will still be able to see transactions for each child account. NOTE: Do be careful to make sure you are reserving the proper amount out of any profits your startup may have for taxes - you don't want to mix this with personal money and then later find out that you owe taxes and have to scramble to come up with the money if you have already spent it This is one of the main reasons to segregate your startup's revenues and profits in the business account. For those using \"\"brick and mortar\"\" banking services rather than a service like Paypal: You likely do not need a business checking account if you are a startup. Most likely, you can simply open a second personal account with your bank in your name, and name it \"\"John Doe DBA Company Name\"\" (DBA = Doing Business As). This way, you can pay expenses and accept payments in the name of your startup. Check with your banker for additional details (localized information).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "806e9a3ed65f7aa9a2cea31e6a32d23f", "text": "\"I don't know what you mean by \"\"claim for taxes,\"\" I think you mean pay taxes. I'm not sure how corps function in Canada but in the US single owner limited liability entities typically pass the net income through to the owner to be included in their personal tax return. So it seems all of this is more or less moot, because really you should probably already be including your income sourced from this project on your personal taxes and that's not really likely to change if you formed something more formal. The formal business arrangements really exist to limit the liability of the business spilling over in to the owner's assets. Or trouble in the owner's life spilling over to interrupt the business operation. I don't know what kind of business this is, but it may make sense to set up one of the limited liability arrangements to ensure that business liability doesn't automatically mean personal liability. A sole proprietorship or in the US we have DBA (doing business as) paperwork will get you a separate tax id number, which may be beneficial if you ever have to provide a tax ID and don't want to use your individual ID; but this won't limit your liability the way incorporating does.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2cf41b3998449312536891cb10ff7e6a", "text": "Looks like it's $500 to start (certificate of organization) and $500 per year after that (for an annual report). Start here: http://1.usa.gov/haxLUB And that's just for the state to recognize you as an LLC.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9529029f13f40974e65a101d74200652", "text": "Do you have a separate bank account for your business? That is generally highly recommended. I have a credit card for my single-member LLC. I prefer it this way because it makes the separation of personal and business expenses very clear. Using a personal credit card, but using it for only business expenses seems to be a reasonable practice. You may be able to do one better though... For your sole proprietorship, you can file a DBA which establishes the business name. The details of this depend on your state. With a DBA, I believe you can open a bank account in the name of your business and you may also be able to open a credit card account in the name of the business. I'm not sure what practical difference it makes, but it does make the personal/business distinction clearer. Though, at that point, you might as well just do the LLC...", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0c509b1b72a4cbf876193786938eb9a1", "text": "Use one journal entry, and split the expenses into the appropriate accounts. This can happen even if you never mix business and personal on the same receipt: say you order office supplies (which where I live are immediately deductible as an expense) and software or hardware (which must be depreciated because they are assets) on the same order. We have an account called Proprietors Loan which represents money the company is lending to the humans who own it, or that the humans are lending to the company. Were I to pay for my personal lunch on a business credit card, it would go through that account, increasing the amount the company has lent me or decreasing the amount I have lent it. Similarly if I made a business purchase with a personal card it would go through that account in the other direction. Where I live, I can lend my company all the money I want any time, but if the company lends me money there can't be an outstanding balance over the corporate year end. If you make two credit card entries of 5 and 10 when you go to reconcile your accounts it will be harder because you'll have to realize they together match the single 15 line on your statement. Making a single entry (your A option) will make reconciling your statement much easier. And that way, you'll probably reconcile your statements, which is vital to knowing you actually recorded everything.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6f4290ed479d97b76cb8e3e8ecc89e8f", "text": "Starting and running a business in the US is actually a lot less complicated than most people think. You mention incorporation, but a corporation (or even an S-Corp) isn't generally the best entity to start a business with . Most likely you are going to want to form an LLC instead this will provide you with liability protection while minimizing your paperwork and taxes. The cost for maintaining an LLC is relatively cheap $50-$1000 a year depending on your state and you can file the paperwork to form it yourself or pay an attorney to do it for you. Generally I would avoid the snake oil salesman that pitch specific out of state LLCs (Nevada, Delaware etc..) unless you have a specific reason or intend on doing business in the state. With the LLC or a Corporation you need to make sure you maintain separate finances. If you use the LLC funds to pay personal expenses you run the risk of loosing the liability protection afforded by the LLC (piercing the corporate veil). With a single member LLC you can file as a pass through entity and your LLC income would pass through to your federal return and taxes aren't any more complicated than putting your business income on your personal return like you do now. If you have employees things get more complex and it is really easiest to use a payroll service to process state and federal tax with holding. Once your business picks up you will want to file quarterly tax payments in order to avoid an under payment penalty. Generally, most taxpayers will avoid the under payment penalty if they owe less than $1,000 in tax after subtracting their withholdings and credits, or if they paid at least 90% of the tax for the current year, or 100% of the tax shown on the return for the prior year, whichever is smaller. Even if you get hit by the penalty it is only 10% of the amount of tax you didn't pay in time. If you are selling a service such writing one off projects you should be able to avoid having to collect and remit sales tax, but this is going to be very state specific. If you are selling software you will have to deal with sales tax assuming your state has a sales tax. One more thing to look at is some cities require a business license in order to operate a business within city limits so it would also be a good idea to check with your city to find out if you need a business license.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dd19288b9fa9daea043139afb9f8ad08", "text": "\"From the IRS perspective, there's no difference between \"\"your taxes\"\" and \"\"your sole proprietorship's taxes\"\", they're all just \"\"your taxes\"\". While I could see it being very useful and wise to track your business's activities separately, and use separate bank accounts and the like, this is just a convenience to help you in your personal accounting, and not something that needs to relate directly to how tax forms are completed or taxes are paid. When calculating your taxes, if you want to figure out how much \"\"you\"\" owe vs. how much \"\"your business\"\" owes, you'll have to do so yourself. One approach might be just to take the amount that your Schedule C puts as income on your return and multiply by your marginal tax rate. Another approach might be to have your tax software run the calculations as though you had no business income, and see what just \"\"your personal\"\" taxes would have been without the business. If you think of the business income as being \"\"first\"\" and should use up the lower brackets rather than your personal income, maybe do it the other way around and have your software run the calculations as though you had only the business income and no other personal/investment income, and see what the amount of taxes would be then. Once you've figured out a good allocation, the actual mechanics of paying some \"\"personal tax amount\"\" from your personal bank account and some \"\"business tax amount\"\" from your business bank account are up to you. I'd probably just transfer the money from my business account to my personal account and pay all the taxes from the personal account. Writing two separate checks, one from each account, that total to the correct amount, I'm sure would work just fine as well. You can probably make separate payments from each account electronically through Direct Pay or EFTPS as well. As long as all taxes are paid by the deadline, I don't think the IRS is too picky about the details of how many payments are made.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8ede1689ace9138ad13e74f51779bd45", "text": "\"Start by going to Salary.com and figuring out what the range is for your location (could be quite wide). Then also look at job postings in your area and see if any of them mention remuneration (gov't jobs tend to do this). If possible go and ask other people in your field what they think the expected range of salary should be. Take all that data and create a range for your position. Then try and place yourself in that range based on your experience and skill set. Be honest. Compare that with your own pay. If your figures indicate you should be making significantly more, schedule a meeting with your boss (or wait for a yearly review if it's relatively soon) and lay out your findings. They can say: Be ready for curve balls like benefits, work environment and other \"\"intangibles\"\". If they say no and you still think your compensation is unfair, it's time to polish up your CV. The easiest way to get a job is to already have one.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "314f393a566100e923915478d09d23a5", "text": "\"An annuity makes sense in a few different scenarios: In general, they are not the best deal around (and are often ripoffs), and will almost certainly be a bad deal if pitched by a tax preparer, insurance salesman, etc. Keep in mind that any \"\"guarantees\"\" offered are guarantees made by an insurance company. The only backing up of that claim in the event of a company failing is protection from your state's Guaranty Association. (ie. not the Feds)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "09848b9331b52609b3aa51f93f586f3a", "text": "There is always some fine print, read it. I doubt there is any product out there that can guarantee an 8% return. As a counter example - a 70 yr old can get 6% in a fixed immediate annuity. On death, the original premium is retained by the insurance company. Whenever I read the prospectus of a VA, I find the actual math betrays a salesman who misrepresented the product. I'd be really curious to read the details for this one.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "997f8451ade04287f29418523900a1e7", "text": "\"Two types of people: (1) Suckers (2) People who feel that investment advisors/brokers make too little money and want to help out by paying insane commissions. Think I'm kidding. Check out this article: \"\"Variable Annuity Pros and Cons\"\" Seriously, for 99% of us, they are a raw deal for everyone except the person selling them.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2d2648553afc74223f8d5ccddfdf22e8", "text": "I wrote a detailed answer about variable annuities on another question, but I want to include one specific situation where a variable annuity may be the right course of action. (For the sake of simplicity, I'm quoting directly from that answer): Three-quarters of US states protect variable annuity assets from creditors. Regular IRA's don't benefit from protection under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and may therefore be more vulnerable to creditors. If you're a potential target for lawsuits, e.g. a doctor worried about medical malpractice suits, variable annuities may be an option for you. As always, you should consult a legal/tax professional to see if this might be a good option for you to consider. The SEC also has a fantastic publication on variable annuities that provides a great deal of information. It's not directly related to this question because it doesn't necessarily focus on the circumstances in which they might be a good fit for you, but it's educational nevertheless and should give you more than enough information to properly evaluate any policy you're looking to buy.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "86fe07e011ffb2aa561483dc03932b88", "text": "\"Your relatively young age and the current very low bond interest rates make annuities a very poor buy. And most of the other suggestions you have mentioned have very low diversification, which exposes you to imprudent risks. Buying shares for dividend income can solve the diversification problem by averaging out your totals as different shares change by different amounts. There is no really good solution to the problem of share price volatility except to ignore it: Take your dividends and pretty much ignore the bouncing around of the share price. They usually recover in a year or three. Owning shares of companies that reliably increase their dividend payouts is the only investment type that gives you both diversification and regularly increasing income to counteract inflation over the years. Read some investment books and consider consulting with a financial advisor who charges a fee for the advice. I.e., you don't want \"\"free\"\" advice.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "40e08223ac41fd50cdae1dcf1e7cebc1", "text": "The reason for such differences is that there's no source to get this information. The companies do not (and cannot) report who are their shareholders except for large shareholders and stakes of interest. These, in the case of GoPro, were identified during the IPO (you can look the filings up on EDGAR). You can get information from this or that publicly traded mutual fund about their larger holdings from their reports, but private investors don't provide even that. Institutional (public) investors buy and sell shares all the time and only report large investments. So there's no reliable way to get a snapshot picture you're looking for.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f6afaace264db953883616071a4e578d", "text": "This is literally the worst article ever. First dividends are not guaranteed, and the higher the yield the higher the risk for a dividend paying stock. When buying a stock that pays dividends make sure they have the cash flows to cover it long term. Utility stocks are interest rate sensitive. If we head into a period of high interest rates, utility stocks are going to underperform, if not get killed. Exchange traded funds can be extremely risky, and some have much higher fees than mutual funds. Variable Annuities should never be purchased unless you have exhausted all other tax deferred strategies, and then probably still to be avoided because of high fees. Money markets and CDs aren't really investments. They're a cash alternatives that May not keep up with inflation.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1d47943357af338c19a8947599ba63ef", "text": "\"(1) I think the phrase \"\"Variable Annuity\"\" is a glowing red flag. A corollary to that is that any strategy that uses insurance for a purpose (e.g. tax avoidance) other than protecting against loss rates at least a yellow flag. (2) The other really obvious indicator is a return that is completely out of whack with the level of risk they are saying the investment has. For example, if someone promises a 10% annual return that is \"\"Completely Safe\"\" or \"\"Very low risk\"\", Run. (3) If it is advertised on tv/radio, or all your friends are talking about it at parties. Stay away. Example: Investing in Gold Coins or the hot Tech IPO. (4) The whole sales pitch relies on past returns as proof that the investment will do well without any real discussion of other reasons it will continue to to well. Beware the gambler's fallacy. (5) Finally, be very wary of anyone who has some sort of great investment plan that they will teach you if you just pay $X or go to their seminar. Fee based advice is fine, but people selling a get rich quick vehicle typically know the real way to get rich is to get suckers to pay for their seminars.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "58d12be977589164580793608e7d3fea", "text": "Also a layman, and I didnt read the article because it did the whole 'screw you for blocking my ads' thing. But judging from the title, I'd guess someone bought a massive amount of call options for VIX, the stock that tracks volatility in the market. Whenever the market crashes or goes through difficult times, the VIX fund prospers. The 'by october' part makes me think it was call options that he purchased: basically he paid a premium for each share (a fraction of the shares cost) for the right to buy that share at today's price, from now until october. So if the share increases in value, for each call option he has, he can buy one share at todays price, and sell it at the price it is that day. Options can catapult your profit into the next dimension but if the share decreases in value or even stays the same price, he loses everything. Vicious redditors, please correct the mistakes ive made here with utmost discrimination", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e08777a31b5b1789c6b236753f6e9b77", "text": "The example from the following website: Investopedia - Calculating The Present And Future Value Of Annuities specifically the section 'Calculating the Present Value of an Annuity Due' shows how the calculation is made. Using their figures, if five payments of $1000 are made over five years and depreciation (inflation) is 5%, the present value is $4545.95 There is also a formula for this summation, (ref. finance formulas)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5f45d01927c79b6f74f74be100f036a2", "text": "Instead of buying in bulk, I invest the money in equity mutual funds, for an expected return of 12%, which is more than inflation. So, I make more returns. But at the cost of a slight risk, which I'm comfortable with.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "25ecfa8f3c795681212ee83de19234fc", "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.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "753edf69dcb054f73313522bf717bcc9", "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.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8177505fb3f012694faa2ced7ad40d4d", "text": "\"There are a few questions that need qualification, and a bit on the understanding of what is being 'purchased'. There are two axioms that require re-iteraton, Death, and Taxes. Now, The First is eventually inevitable, as most people will eventually die. It depends what is happening now, that determines what will happen tomorrow, and the concept of certainty. The Second Is a pay as you go plan. If you are contemplating what will heppen tomorrow, you have to look at what types of \"\"Insurance\"\" are available, and why they were invented in the first place. The High seas can be a rough travelling ground, and Not every shipment of goods and passengers arrived on time, and one piece. This was the origin of \"\"insurance\"\", when speculators would gamble on the safe arrival of a ship laden with goods, at the destination, and for this they received a 'cut' on the value of the goods shipped. Thus the concept of 'Underwriting', and the VALUE associated with the cargo, and the method of transport. Based on an example gallion of good repair and a well seasoned Captain and crew, a lower rate of 'insurance' was deemed needed, prior to shipment, than some other 'rating agency - or underwriter'. Now, I bring this up, because, it depends on the Underwriter that you choose as to the payout, and the associated Guarantee of Funds, that you will receive if you happen to need to 'collect' on the 'Insurance Contract'. In the case of 'Death Benefit' insurance, You will never see the benefit, at the end, however, while the policy is in force (The Term), it IS an Asset, that would be considered in any 'Estate Planning' exercise. First, you have to consider, your Occupation, and the incidence of death due to occupational hazards. Generally this is considered in your employment negotiations, and is either reflected in the salary, or if it is a state sponsored Employer funded, it is determined by your occupational risk, and assessed to the employer, and forms part of the 'Cost-of-doing-business', in that this component or 'Occupational Insurance' is covered by that program. The problem, is 'disability' and what is deemed the same by the experience of the particular 'Underwriter', in your location. For Death Benefits, Where there is an Accident, for Motor Vehicle Accidents (and 50,000 People in the US die annually) these are covered by Motor Vehicle Policy contracts, and vary from State to State. Check the Registrar of State Insurance Co's for your state to see who are the market leaders and the claim /payout ratios, compared to insurance in force. Depending on the particular, 'Underwiriter' there may be significant differences, and different results in premium, depending on your employer. (Warren Buffet did not Invest in GEICO, because of his benevolence to those who purchase Insurance Policies with GEICO). The original Poster mentions some paramaters such as Age, Smoking, and other 'Risk factors'.... , but does not mention the 'Soft Factors' that are not mentioned. They are, 'Risk Factors' such, as Incidence of Murder, in the region you live, the Zip Code, you live at, and the endeavours that you enjoy when you are not in your occupation. From the Time you get up in the morning, till the time you fall asleep (And then some), you are 'AT Risk' , not from a event standpoint, but from a 'Fianancial risk' standpoint. This is the reason that all of the insurance contracts, stipulate exclusions, and limits on when they will pay out. This is what is meant by the 'Soft Risk Factors', and need to be ascertained. IF you are in an occupation that has a limited exposure to getting killed 'on the job', then you will be paying a lower premium, than someone who has a high risk occupation. IT used to be that 'SkySkraper Iron Workers', had a high incidence of injury and death , but over the last 50 years, this has changed. The US Bureau of Labor Statistics lists these 10 jobs as the highest for death (per 100,000 workers). The scales tilt the other way for these occupations: (In Canada, the Cheapest Rate for Occupational Insurance is Lawyer, and Politician) So, for the rest in Sales, management etc, the national average is 3 to 3.5 depending on the region, of deaths per 100,000 employed in that occupation. So, for a 30 year old bank worker, the premium is more like a 'forced savings plan', in the sense that you are paying towards something in the future. The 'Risk of Payout' in Less than 6 months is slim. For a Logging Worker or Fisher(Men&Women) , the risk is very high that they might not return from that voyage for fish and seafood. If you partake in 'Extreme Sports' or similar risk factors, then consider getting 'Whole Term- Life' , where the premium is spread out over your working lifetime, and once you hit retirement (55 or 65) then the occupational risk is less, and the plan will payout at the age of 65, if you make it that far, and you get a partial benefit. IF you have a 'Pension Plan', then that also needs to be factored in, and be part of a compreshensive thinking on where you want to be 5 years from today.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1f3dc5f3342791a9c6385b702ab00e25", "text": "Accredited investors are required to have 1 million in assets (not including primary residence) or $200,000/yr income for the last 3 years. These kinds of regulations come from the SEC, not the company involved, which means the SEC thinks it's a risky investment. If I recall correctly, [someone I know] had to submit evidence of being an accredited investor to trade options on [his] IRA. It may be that this is related to the classification of the options.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4fd5b5ed5fb4dd0fcbd1af43c9b6ee97", "text": "Some investors (pension funds or insurance companies) need to pay out a certain amount of money to their clients. They need cash on a periodical basis, and thus prefer dividend paying stock more.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5d7be5ad5ea9d477522e1a2195170154", "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.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0a3e1f76db959025e5bcc8a31cf63f2e", "text": "\"This answer is provided mostly to answer your question \"\"what is it?\"\" A variable annuity is a contract between you and an insurance company. The insurance company takes a bunch of money up front as a lump sum, and will pay you some money yearly - like earning interest. (In this case, they will probably be paying you the money into the account itself). How much they return is, as the name suggests, variable. It can be anything, depending on what the contract says. Mostly, there will be some formula based on the stock market - frequently, the performance of the Standard & Poors 500 Index. There will typically be some minimum returns and maximum returns - if the stock market tanks, your annuity will not lose a ton of value, but if the stock market goes up a lot in one year (as it frequently does), you will not gain a lot of value either. If you are going to be in the market for a long amount of time (decades, e.g. \"\"a few years out of college\"\" and then a little), it makes a lot more sense to invest in the stock market directly. This is essentially what the insurance company is going to do, except you can cut out the middleman. You can get a lot more money that way. You are essentially paying the insurance company to take on some stock market risk for you - you are buying some safety. Buying safety like this is expensive. Variable annuities are the right investment for a few people in a few circumstances - mostly, if you're near retirement, it's one way to have an option for a \"\"safe\"\" investment, for a portion (but not all) of your portfolio. Maybe. Depending on the specifics, a lot. If you are under, like, 50 or so? Almost certainly a terrible investment which will gradually waste your money (by not growing it as fast as it deserves to be grown). Since you want to transfer it to Vanguard, you can probably call Vanguard, ask to open a Roth IRA, and request assistance rolling it over from the place it is held now. There should be no legal restrictions or tax consequences from transferring the money from one Roth IRA account to another.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "03bdcd1b1605b952c67b41e225da099a", "text": "\"The end result is basically the same, it's just a choice of whether you want to base the final amount you receive on your salary, or on the stock market. You pay in a set proportion of your salary, and receive a set proportion of your salary in return. The pension (both contributions and benefit) are based on your career earnings. You get x% of your salary every year from retirement until death. These are just a private investment, basically: you pay a set amount in, and whatever is there is what you get at the end. Normally you would buy an annuity with the final sum, which pays you a set amount per year from retirement until death, as with the above. The amount you receive depends on how much you pay in, and the performance of the investment. If the stock market does well, you'll get more. If it does badly, you could actually end up with less. In general (in as much as anything relating to the stock market and investment can be generalised), a Defined Benefit plan is usually considered better for \"\"security\"\" - or at least, public sector ones, and a majority of people in my experience would prefer one, but it entirely depends on your personal attitude to risk. I'm on a defined benefit plan and like the fact that I basically get a benefit based on a proportion of my salary and that the amount is guaranteed, no matter what happens to the stock market in the meantime. I pay in 9% of my salary get 2% of my salary as pension, for each year I pay into the pension: no questions, no if's or buts, no performance indicators. Others prefer a defined contribution scheme because they know that it is based on the amount they pay in, not the amount they earn (although to an extent it is still based on earnings, as that's what defines how much you pay in), and because it has the potential to grow significantly based on the stock market. Unfortunately, nobody can give you a \"\"which is best\"\" answer - if I knew how pension funds were going to perform over the next 10-50 years, I wouldn't be on StackExchange, I'd be out there making a (rather large) fortune on the stock market.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "73c1c16bf47ebca4d43da55668d981a9", "text": "This is also an opinion, the iPhone makes up too much of the company's total revenue. Last quarter results were very well received because of the somewhat dramatic increase in service revenue indicating that maybe the company can shift from relying so heavily on the iPhone. As it stands, Apple is a single product company and that hinders long term prospects, hence the relatively low multiple. And the company has missed estimates, in fact one of those large dips was an earnings miss. Additionally, if you're looking at the charts another one of the recent dips was likely caused by the brexit vote because everything was clobbered for a couple of days after that.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3e93b98b04d8829f902ef2af64c30c25", "text": "\"This is an opinion, but I think it has more to do with the market's uncertainty about the long-term future of the company without Steve Jobs. Apple hasn't released anything more than incremental upgrades to its existing product lines since Jobs passed, and while some people would argue about the Apple watch, Jobs played a significant role in its development prior to his death, so that doesn't really count. Whether you like or hate Apple, you had to admire Jobs' passion and creativity, and there's real question as to whether the company can sustain its dominance in the market without the Jobs vision over the long haul. My guess is that the market is leaning slightly toward the \"\"no\"\" column, but only ever so slightly. The company continues to deliver fantastic results, but how long will that last of their next products don't wow consumers the way previous ones have? This skepticism manifests itself in a stock that trades at a lower P/E than it deserves to, but this is just my opinion. I hope this helps. Good luck!\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "0bc934b26cd5698a318b31ef671dd898", "text": "\"Simple answer is because the stocks don't split. Most stocks would have a similar high price per share if they didn't split occasionally. Why don't they split? A better way to ask this is probably, why DO most stocks split? The standard answer is that it gives the appearance that stocks are \"\"cheap\"\" again and encourages investors to buy them. Some people, Warren Buffett (of Berkshire Hathaway) don't want any part of these shenanigans and refuse to split their stocks. Buffett also has commented that he thinks splitting a stock also adds unnecessary volatility.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a217cbaefeb85839cd9f343a46cad2d9", "text": "\"The simple answer could be that one or more \"\"people\"\" decided to buy. By \"\"people,\"\" I don't mean individual buyers of 100 shares like you or me, but typically large institutional investors like Fidelity, who might buy millions of shares at a time. Or if you're talking about a human person, perhaps someone like Warren Buffett. In a \"\"thinly\"\" traded small cap stock that typically trades a few hundred shares in a day, an order for \"\"thousands\"\" could significantly move the price. This is one situation where more or less \"\"average\"\" people could move a single stock.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0742672d02cfccdb4f5d353d0b45f498", "text": "The main reason I'm aware of that very few individuals do this sort of trading is that you're not taking into account the transaction costs, which can and will be considerable for a small-time investor. Say your transaction costs you $12, that means in order to come out ahead you'll have to have a fairly large position in a given instrument to make that fee back and some money. Most smaller investors wouldn't really want to tie up 5-6 figures for a day on the chance that you'll get $100 back. The economics change for investment firms, especially market makers that get special low fees for being a market maker (ie, offering liquidity by quoting all the time).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2caad8bac7884678d9bc58880974f4d1", "text": "While on the surface it may seem that the warrant you described is trading below intrinsic value, there are many reasons why that might not be the case. It's more likely that you are lacking information, than having identified a derivative instrument that the market has failed to reasonably price. For instance, might there be a conversion ratio on the warrants other than the 1:1 ratio that you seem to be assuming? Sometimes, warrant terms are such that multiple warrants are required to buy one share of stock. Consider: The conversion ratio is the number of warrants needed in order to buy (or sell) one investment unit. Therefore, if the conversion ratio to buy stock XYZ is 3:1, this means that the holder needs three warrants in order to purchase one share. Usually, if the conversion ratio is high, the price of the share will be low, and vice versa. (source) Conversion ratios are sometimes used so that warrants can be issued on a 1:1 basis to existing stockholders, but where the potential number of new shares to be issued is much less. Conversion ratio is just one such example that could lead to perceived mispricing, and there may be other restrictions on exercise. Warrants are not issued by an options exchange using standardized option contract terms, and so warrant terms vary considerably from issuer to issuer. Even series of warrants from the same issuer may have differing terms. Always look beyond any warrant quote to find a definitive source of the warrant's precise terms — and read those terms carefully before taking any position.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e922f76f4b55236cf0889571e37fab4d", "text": "It is simply an average of what each analyst covering that stock are recommending, and since they usually only recommend Hold or Buy (rarely Sell), the value will float between Hold and Buy. Not very useful IMHO.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "13d344c7642c5990a4d0b92f3dcccdf9", "text": "A bit of poking around brought me to this thread on the Motley Fool, asking the same basic question: I think the problem is the stock price. For a stock to be sold short, it has to be marginable which means it has to trade over $ 5.00. The broker, therefore, can't borrow the stock for you to sell short because it isn't held in their clients' margin accounts. My guess is that Etrade, along with other brokers, simply exclude these stocks for short selling. Ivestopedia has an explanation of non-marginable securities. Specific to stocks under $5: Other securities, such as stocks with share prices under $5 or with extremely high betas, may be excluded at the discretion of the broker itself.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0d69da49ccfe79928a6c24a92c7f75c9", "text": "From a theoretical POV, it's in part due to Beta. Beta is a measure of volatility compared to the market. If the market returns 10%, and the risk free is 5%, then a company that has a beta 2 will have 2*(10%-5%) + 5% = 15% return. Usually it's not that great a measure for individual stocks because of the lack of diversification, eg if a company has a beta of 1, ie same expected returns as the market, and then it has a really bad earnings report, obviously is still going to go down even if the market is going up. Fixed equation, Forgot to add RF back in.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3b028ff834b19af321fd99ce9009ac14", "text": "AAPL will not drop out of NASDAQ100 tomorrow. From your own quote: The fund and the index are rebalanced quarterly and reconstituted annually", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0dcf27f71de383975b0639ac33ada7d5", "text": "the implications are that the company's earnings per share may seem greater, (after the company buys them there will be less shares outstanding), giving wall street the impression that there is more growth potential than there really is. its an accounting gimmick that can work for a few quarters while the company evaluates how else to impress wall street", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d6bf11b0627d73cbea9659cfedae9210", "text": "\"The calculation and theory are explained in the other answers, but it should be pointed out that the video is the equivalent of watching a magic trick. The secret is: \"\"Stock A and B are perfectly negatively correlated.\"\" The video glasses over that fact that without that fact the risk doesn't drop to zero. The rule is that true diversification does decrease risk. That is why you are advised to spread year investments across small-cap, large-cap, bonds, international, commodities, real estate. Getting two S&P 500 indexes isn't diversification. Your mix of investments will still have risk, because return and risk are backward calculations, not a guarantee of future performance. Changes that were not anticipated will change future performance. What kind of changes: technology, outsourcing, currency, political, scandal.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9e1c1d248918ff767562b5549d2a3218", "text": "\"According to Yahoo, AAPL was trading at $113.26 at 1:10 PM on 11/13/15, which is the approximate time of your option quote. You provided a quote for AAPL at 4:15, and the stock happened to keep going down most of the that afternoon. To make a sensible comparison, you need to take contemporary prices on both the stock and the option. The quote on the option also shows the \"\"price\"\" being outside of the bid-ask range, which suggests that the option was trading thinly and that the last price occurred sometime earlier in the day. If you use a price in the bid-ask range ($21.90-$22.30) and use the price of AAPL at the time of the put quote, you'll come up with a price that's much closer to your expectation.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2203128e094a95e27e80cf38a2ef57c7", "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.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e302b03f30b9eddbdda22282b45ba6e9", "text": "Not directly an answer to your question, but somewhat related: There are derivatives (whose English name I sadly don't know) that allow to profit from breaking through an upper or alternatively a lower barrier. If the trade range does not hit either barrier you lose. This kind of derivative is useful if you expect a strong movement in either direction, which typically occurs at high volume.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "52e41eaf6ab2a990bfe7c69d2d688a11", "text": "There are lots of good answers on here already. There are actually lots of answers for this question. Lots. I have years of experience on the exchange feed side and there are hundreds and thousands of variables. All of these variables are funneled into systems owned by large financial institutions (I used to manage these - and only a few companies in the world do this so not hard to guess who I work for). Their computers then make trades based on all of these variables and equations. There are variables as whacky as how many times was a company mentioned in an aggregate news feed down to your basic company financials. But if there is a way to measure a company (or to just guess) there is an equation for it plugged into a super computer at a big bank. Now there are two important factors on why you see this mad dash in the morning: Now most of the rest of the day is also automated trades but by the time you are an hour into market open the computers for the most part have fulfilled their calendar buys. Everyone else's answer is right too. There is futures contracts that change, global exchange info changes, options expiring, basic news, whatever but all of these are amplified by the calendar day changing.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d1368ff9eae4bc580a900ba04e19cb65", "text": "This all happens at once and quickly. Not in order. So the HFT floods the exchange with orders. This is independent of anything. They would be doing this no matter what. Simply in anticipation of finding someone who will want what they're trying to buy. They then notice someone wants what they have a buy order for. They, at the same time, cancel all orders that don't fit this criteria. At the same time, they're testing this guy to see what his price is. So while they're testing this guy they're cancelling all orders that are above his strike price for that stock. They let the right order go through, for a lower price. If they can't get a lower price, they just forget it. However, they probably can because they were in line first. They're buying before this guy and AFTER they know what he wants to pay. Then, they sell it to him.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "b8763fac73b9c4be5794c15172547797", "text": "Retained earnings is different from partner capital accounts. You can draw the money however the partners agree. Unless money is specifically transferred to the capital funds, earnings will not show up there.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "d304ada0eec7878085696ff363929bd9", "text": "\"To calculate the balance (not just principal) remaining, type into your favorite spreadsheet program: It is important that the periods for \"\"Periods\"\" and \"\"Rate\"\" match up. If you use your annual rate with quarterly periods, you will get a horribly wrong answer. So, if you invest $1000 today, expect 6% interest per year (0.5% interest per month), withdraw $10 at the end of each month, and want to know what your investment balance will be 2 years (24 months) from now, you would type: And you would get a result of $872.84. Or, to compute it manually, use the formula found here by poster uart: This is often taught in high-school here as a application of geomentric series. The derivation goes like this. Using the notation : r = 1 + interest_rate_per_term_as_decimal p = present value a = payment per term eot1 denotes the FV at end of term 1 etc. eot1: rp + a eot2: r(rp + a) + a = r^2p + ra + a eot3: r(r^2p + ra + a) + a = r^3p + r^2a + ra + a ... eotn: r^np + (r^(n-1) + r^(n-2) + ... 1)a = p r^n + a (r^n - 1)/(r-1) That is, FV = p r^n + a (r^n - 1)/(r-1). This is precisely what exel [sic] computes for the case of payments made at the end of each term (payment type = 0). It's easy enough to repeat the calculations as above for the case of payments made at the beginning of each term. This won't work for changing interest rates or changing withdrawal amounts. For something like that, it would be better for you (if you don't want online calculators) to set up a table in a spreadsheet so you can adjust different periods manually.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "181412d0dfd9b6ebf68ab4c0aa3b8b44", "text": "There is no generic formula as such, but you can work it out using all known incomes and expenses and by making some educated assuption. You should generaly know your buying costs, which include the purchase price, legal fees, taxes (in Australia we have Stamp Duty, which is a large state based tax when you purchase a property). Other things to consider include estimates for any repairs and/or renovations. Also, you should look at the long term growth in your area and use this as an estimate of your potential growth over the period you wish to hold the property, and estimate the agent fees if you were to sell, and the depreciation on the building. These things, including the agent fees when selling and building depreciation, will all be added or deducted to your cost base to determine the amount of capital gain when and if you sell the property. You then need to multiply this gain by the capital gains tax rate to determine the capital gains tax you may have to pay. From all the items above you will be able to estimate the net capital gain (after all taxes) you could expect to make on the property over the period you are looking to hold it for. In regards to holding and renting the property, things you will need to consider include the rent, the long term growth of rent in your area, and all the expenses including, loan fees and interest, insurance, rates, land tax, and an estimate of the annual maintenance cost per year. Also, you would need to consider any depreciation deductions you can claim. Other things you will need to consider, is the change in these values as time goes by, and provide an estimate for these in your calculations. Any increase in the value of land will increase the amount of rates and the land tax you pay, and generally your insurance and maintenance costs will increase with time. However, your interest and mortgage repayments will reduce over time. Will your rent increases cover your increases in the expenses. From all the items above you should be able to work out an estimate of your net rental gain or loss for each year. Again do this for the number of years you are looking to hold the property for and then sum up the total to give a net profit or loss. If there is a net loss from the income, then you need to consider if the net capital gain will cover these losses and still give you a reasonable return over the period you will own the property. Below is a sample calculation showing most of the variables I have discussed.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "399db64a304c7fc66c5a72efd53d8696", "text": "How you use the metric is super important. Because it subtracts cash, it does not represent 'value'. It represents the ongoing financing that will be necessary if both the equity plus debt is bought by one person, who then pays himself a dividend with that free cash. So if you are Private Equity, this measures your net investment at t=0.5, not the price you pay at t=0. If you are a retail investor, who a) won't be buying the debt, b) won't have any control over things like tax jurisdictions, c) won't be receiving any cash dividend, etc etc .... the metric is pointless.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e91d8c0dcb863fc4b14459f62a081534", "text": "\"Complex matter that doesn't boil down to a formula. The quant aspect could be assessed by calculating WACCs under various funding scenarii and trying to minimize, but it is just one dimension of it. The quali aspects can vary widely depending on the company, ownership structure, tax environment and business needs and it really can't be covered even superficially in a reddit comment... Few examples from the top of my mind to give you a sense of it: - shareholders might be able to issue equity but want to avoid dilution, so debt is preferred in the end despite cost. Or convertible debt under the right scenario. - company has recurring funding needs and thinks that establishing a status on debt market is worth paying a premium to ensure they can \"\"tap\"\" it whenever hey need to. - adding debt is a way to leverage and enhance ROI/IRR for certain types of stakeholders (think LBOs) - etc etc etc Takes time and a lot of experience/work to be able to figure out what's best and there isn't always a clear answer. Source: pro buy side credit investor with experience and sizeable AuMs.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "36933c8b079e518d1fe172462a6c9355", "text": "It's better to use the accounting equation concept: Asset + Expenses = Capital + Liabilities + Income If you purchase an asset: Suppose you purchased a laptop of $ 500, then its journal will be: If you sell the same Laptop for $ 500, then its entry will be:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a1f8e1e935ad365e016e2e6468cf4797", "text": "Adding assets (equity) and liabilities (debt) never gives you anything useful. The value of a company is its assets (including equity) minus its liabilities (including debt). However this is a purely theoretical calculation. In the real world things are much more complicated, and this isn't going to give you a good idea of much a company's shares are worth in the real world", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2ff2c8d04f80b637da2b51de86a1c16e", "text": "First, determine the workload he will expect. Will you have to quit your other work, either for time or for competition? How much of your current business will be subsumed into his business, if any? Make sure to understand what he wants from you. If you make an agreement, set it in writing and set some clear expectations about what will happen to your business (e.g. it continues and is not part of your association with the client). Because he was a client for your current business, it can blur the lines. Second, if you join him, make sure there is a business entity. By working together for profit, you will have already formed a partnership for tax purposes. Best to get an entity, both for the legal protection and also for the clarity of law and accounting. LLCs are simplest for small ventures; C corps are useful if you have lots of early losses and owners that can't use them personally, or if you want to be properly formed for easy consumption by a strategic. Most VCs and super-angels prefer everybody be a straight C. Again, remember to define, as necessary, what you are contributing to be an owner and what you are retaining (your original business, which for simplicity may already be in an entity). As part of this process, make sure he defines the cap table and any outstanding loans. Auntie June and Cousin Steve might think their gifts to him were loans or equity purchases; best to clear this issue up early before there's any more money in it. Third, with regard to price, that is an intensely variable question. It matters what the cap table looks like, how early you are, how much work he's already done, how much work remains to be done, and how much it will pay off. Also, if you do it, expect to be diluted by other employees, angels, VCs, other investors, strategics, and so on. Luckily, more investors usually indicates a growing pie, so the dilution may not be at all painful. But it should still be on your horizon. You also need to consider your faith in your prospective partner's ability to run the business and to be a trustworthy partner (so you don't get Zuckerberg'd), and to market the business and the product to customers and investors. If you don't like the prospects, then opt for cash. If you like the business but want to hedge, ask for compensation plus equity. There are other tricks you could use to get out early, like forced redemption, but they probably wouldn't help either because it'd sour your relationship or the first VC or knowledgeable angel to come along will want you to relinquish that sort of right. It probably comes down to a basic question of your need for cash, his willingness to let you pursue outside work (hopefully high) and your appraisal of the business' prospects.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "19e274619afa82cd02d9aab9f56d1ebc", "text": "\"You are confining the way you and the other co-founders are paid for guaranteeing the loan to capital shares. Trying to determine payments by equity distribution is hard. It is a practice that many small companies particularly the ones in their initial stage fall into. I always advise against trying to make payments with equity, weather it is for unpaid salary or for guaranteeing a loan such as your case. Instead of thinking about a super sophisticated algorithm to distribute the new shares between the cofounders and the new investors, given a set of constraints, which will most probably fail to make the satisfactory split, you should simply view the co-founders as debt lenders for the company and the shareholders as a capital contributor. If the co-founders are treated as debt lenders, it will be much easier to determine the risk compensation for guaranteeing the loan because it is now assessed in monetary units and this compensation is equal to the risk premium you see fit \"\"taking into consideration the probability of default \"\". On the other hand, capital contributors will gain capital shares as a percentage of the total value of the company after adding SBA loan.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e6a86727ce2c1f10f9574097f583a59e", "text": "Shareholders are the equity holders. They mean the same thing. A simplified formula for the total value of a company is the value of its equity, plus the value of its debt, less its cash (for reasons I won't get into). There are usually other things to add or subtract, but that's the basic formula.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "37528e2711eafb0e0573772a2bf49083", "text": "The equation is the same one used for mortgage amortization. You first want to calculate the PV (present value) for a stream of $50K payments over 20 years at a10% rate. Then that value is the FV (future value) that you want to save for, and you are looking to solve the payment stream needed to create that future value. Good luck achieving the 10% return, and in knowing your mortality down to the exact year. Unless this is a homework assignment, which need not reflect real life. Edit - as indicated above, the first step is to get that value in 20 years: The image is the user-friendly entry screen for the PV calculation. It walks you though the need to enter rate as per period, therefore I enter .1/12 as the rate. The payment you desire is $50K/yr, and since it's a payment, it's a negative number. The equation in excel that results is: =PV(0.1/12,240,-50000/12,0) and the sum calculated is $431,769 Next you wish to know the payments to make to arrive at this number: In this case, you start at zero PV with a known FV calculated above, and known rate. This solves for the payment needed to get this number, $568.59 The excel equation is: =PMT(0.1/12,240,0,431769) Most people have access to excel or a public domain spreadsheet application (e.g. Openoffice). If you are often needing to perform such calculations, a business finance calculator is recommended. TI used to make a model BA-35 finance calculator, no longer in production, still on eBay, used. One more update- these equations whether in excel or a calculator are geared toward per period interest, i.e. when you state 10%, they assume a monthly 10/12%. With that said, you required a 20 year deposit period and 20 year withdrawal period. We know you wish to take out $4166.67 per month. The equation to calculate deposit required becomes - 4166.67/(1.00833333)^240= 568.59 HA! Exact same answer, far less work. To be clear, this works only because you required 240 deposits to produce 240 withdrawals in the future.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7af4f32798568d7e60f0dbc247e02a37", "text": "The price-earnings ratio is calculated as the market value per share divided by the earnings per share over the past 12 months. In your example, you state that the company earned $0.35 over the past quarter. That is insufficient to calculate the price-earnings ratio, and probably why the PE is just given as 20. So, if you have transcribed the formula correctly, the calculation given the numbers in your example would be: 0.35 * 4 * 20 = $28.00 As to CVRR, I'm not sure your PE is correct. According to Yahoo, the PE for CVRR is 3.92 at the time of writing, not 10.54. Using the formula above, this would lead to: 2.3 * 4 * 3.92 = $36.06 That stock has a 52-week high of $35.98, so $36.06 is not laughably unrealistic. I'm more than a little dubious of the validity of that formula, however, and urge you not to base your investing decisions on it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5467dcadbea676578ee66dca23e951b4", "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.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e65ca832826c13679b69f21901aa6230", "text": "First, you should probably have a proper consultation with a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State). In fact you should have had it before you started, but that ship has sailed. You're talking about start-up expenses. You can generally deduct up to $5000 in the year your business starts, and the expenses in excess will be amortized over 180 months (15 years). This is per the IRC Sec. 195. The amortization starts when your business is active (i.e.: you can buy the property, but not actually open the restaurant - you cannot start the depreciation). I have a couple questions about accounting - should all the money I spent be a part of capital spending? Or is it just a part of it? If it qualifies as start-up/organizational expenses - it should be capitalized. If it is spent on capital assets - then it should also be capitalized, but for different reasons and differently. For example, costs of filing paperwork for permits is a start-up expense. Buying a commercial oven is a capital asset purchase which should be depreciated separately, as buying the tables and silverware. If it is a salary expense to your employees - then it is a current expense and shouldn't be capitalized. Our company is LLC if this matters. It matters to how it affects your personal tax return.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7aec2e5d1480a09c5e8c8671d32c6e8d", "text": "\"A bit strange but okay. The way I would think about this is again that you need to determine for what purpose you're computing this, in much the same way you would if you were to build out the model. The IPO valuation is not going to be relevant to the accretion/dilution analysis unless you're trying to determine whether the transaction was net accretive at exit. But that's a weird analysis to do. For longer holding periods like that you're more likely to look at IRR, not EPS. EPS is something investors look at over the short to medium term to get a sense of whether the company is making good acquisition decisions. And to do that short-to-medium term analysis, they look at earnings. Damodaran would say this is a shitty way of looking at things and that you should probably be looking at some measure of ROIC instead, and I tend to agree, but I don't get paid to think like an investor, I get paid to sell shit to them (if only in indirect fashion). The short answer to your question is that no, you should not incorporate what you are calling liquidation value when determining accretion/dilution, but only because the market typically computes accretion/dilution on a 3-year basis tops. I've never put together a book or seen a press release in my admittedly short time in finance that says \"\"the transaction is estimated to be X% accretive within 4 years\"\" - that just seems like an absurd timeline. Final point is just that from an accounting perspective, a gain on a sale of an asset is not going to get booked in either EBITDA or OCF, so just mechanically there's no way for the IPO value to flow into your accretion/dilution analysis there, even if you are looking at EBITDA/shares. You could figure the gain on sale into some kind of adjusted EBITDA/shares version of EPS, but this is neither something I've ever seen nor something that really makes sense in the context of using EPS as a standardized metric across the market. Typically we take OUT non-recurring shit in EPS, we don't add it in. Adding something like this in would be much more appropriate to measuring the success of an acquisition/investing vehicle like a private equity fund, not a standalone operating company that reports operational earnings in addition to cash flow from investing. And as I suggest above, that's an analysis for which the IRR metric is more ideally situated. And just a semantic thing - we typically wouldn't call the exit value a \"\"liquidation value\"\". That term is usually reserved for dissolution of a corporate entity and selling off its physical or intangible assets in piecemeal fashion (i.e. not accounting for operational synergies across the business). IPO value is actually just going to be a measure of market value of equity.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d60325706e4d14e7d6c127256acf0b12", "text": "No. The above calculation does not hold good. When financial statements are prepared they are prepared on a going concern basis, i.e. a business will run normally in the foreseeable future. Valuation of assets and liabilities is done according to this principle. When a bankruptcy takes places or a business closes down, immediately the valuation method will change. For assets, the realizable value will be more relevant. For example, if you hold 100 computers, in an normal situation, they will depreciated at the normal rate. Every year, some portion of the cost is written off as depreciation. When you actually go to sell these computers you are likely to realize much less than what is shown in the statement. Similarly, for a building, the actual realizable value may be more. For liabilities, they tend to increase in such situation. Hence just a plain computation can give you a very broad idea but the actual figure may be different.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "ee4d0a9daa326b674d55ebf8b17e4920", "text": "The original investors and founders own them. Think about it this way - When you hear that an IPO priced at $10 opened at $50, is that 'good or 'bad'? Of course, it depends who you are. If you are the guy that got them at $10, you're happy. If you are the founder of the company, you are thinking the banker you paid to determine a market price for the IPO failed. Big. He blew it, basically as you just sold your company for 20% of the perceived value. But, instead of selling all the shares, just sell, say, 5%. Now, the IPO opening price is just a way to understand the true value of your company while keeping 95% of the upside once the market settles down to a regular trading pattern. You can slowly sell these shares into the market or you can use them as cash to take over other companies by buying with these shares instead of actual cash. Either way, the publicly traded shares should trade based on the total value of the company and the fraction they represent.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bac214f84613bd07bc8509fb6c2e641f", "text": "Many people have criticized the Groupon IPO model because it doesn't make sense as an investment, unless you are an insider with cheap shares. Basically, you have:", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "69923fb1d6e6e062c5b30216a5600c26", "text": "Even with non-voting shares, you own a portion of the company including all of its assets and its future profits. If the company is sold, goes out of business and liquidates, etc., those with non-voting shares still stand collect their share of the funds generated. There's also the possibility, as one of the comments notes, that a company will pay dividends in the future and distribute its assets to shareholders that way. The example of Google (also mentioned in the comments) is interesting because when they went to voting and non-voting stock, there was some theoretical debate about whether the two types of shares (GOOG and GOOGL) would track each other in value. It turned out that they did not - People did put a premium on voting, so that is worth something. Even without the voting rights, however, Google has massive assets and each share (GOOG and GOOGL) represented ownership of a fraction of those assets and that kept them highly correlated in value. (Google had to pay restitution to some shareholders of the non-voting stock as a result of the deviation in value. I won't get into the details here since it's a bit of tangent, but you could easily find details on the web.)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "59cf5efd93208588af4d31a00b6e7d2d", "text": "NSCC illiquid charges are charges that apply to the trading of low-priced over-the counter (OTC) securities with low volumes. Open net buy quantity represents the total unsettled share amount per stock at any given time during a 3-day settlement cycle. Open net buy quantity must be less than 5,000,000 shares per stock for your entire firm Basically, you can't hold a long position of more than 5 million shares in an illiquid OTC stock without facing a fee. You'll still be assessed this fee if you accumulate a long position of this size by breaking your purchase up into multiple transactions. Open net sell quantity represents the total unsettled share amount per stock at any given time during a 3-day settlement cycle. Open net sell quantity must be less than 10% percent of the 20-day average volume If you attempt to sell a number of shares greater than 10% of the stock's average volume over the last 20 days, you'll also be assessed a fee. The first link I included above is just an example, but it makes the important point: you may still be assessed a fee for trading OTC stocks even if your account doesn't meet the criteria because these restrictions are applied at the level of the clearing firm, not the individual client. This means that if other investors with your broker, or even at another broker that happens to use the same clearing firm, purchase more than 5 million shares in an individual OTC stock at the same time, all of your accounts may face fees, even though individually, you don't exceed the limits. Technically, these fees are assessed to the clearing firm, not the individual investor, but usually the clearing firm will pass the fees along to the broker (and possibly add other charges as well), and the broker will charge a fee to the individual account(s) that triggered the restriction. Also, remember that when buying OTC/pink sheet stocks, your ability to buy or sell is also contingent on finding someone else to buy from/sell to. If you purchase 10,000 shares one day and attempt to sell them sometime in the future, but there aren't enough buyers to buy all 10,000 from you, you might not be able to complete your order at the desired price, or even at all.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8178fd1146418a40530944cc77778bcf", "text": "These are not real gains. Wherever you're looking this up, the prices are not adjusted for corporate actions. In a reverse stock split the price of a single share multiplies by five, but as a shareholder you hold only one share after for every five that you did before.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e7d69cf99658362327bc6de5f7648fe1", "text": "The big websites, Yahoo and the like, only give the 10 biggest positions of any fund. Download the annual report of the fund, go to page 18, you will find the positions on the 31st of December. However the actual positions could be different. The same applies to all funds. You need the annual report.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d75449a8b0d209111e03f801a5f73cad", "text": "\"@Alex B's answer hits most of it, but leaves out one thing: most companies control who can own their non-public shares, and prohibit transfers, sales, or in some cases, even ongoing ownership by ex-employees. So it's not that hard to ensure you stay under 500 investors. Remember that Sharespost isn't an exchange or clearinghouse; it's basically a bulletin board with some light contract services and third-party escrow services. I'd guess that many of the companies on their \"\"hot\"\" list explicitly prohibit the sale of their non-public shares.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b81aca34c8417c4c10d3634f75262bc5", "text": "Your 1099-B report for ADNT on the fractional shares of cash should answer this question for you. The one I am looking at shows ADNT .8 shares were sold for $36.16 which would equal a sale price of $45.20 per share, and a cost basis of $37.27 for the .8 shares or $46.59 per share.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "10ab38de2067dd00c2d7de765196fcd2", "text": "There is a company that will sell you single paper shares of stock for many companies and handle framing. But you pay a large premium over the stock price. Disney stopped doing paper share certificates a while ago, but you should be able to buy some of the old ones on eBay if you want.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7a53c5f4ce1cf486607686d161248249", "text": "\"The official source is the most recent Form 13F that Berkshire Hathaway, which is filed with the Securities & Exchange Commission on a quarterly basis . You can find it through the SEC filing search engine, using BRKA as the ticker symbol. and then looking for the filings marked 13-FR or 13-FR/A (the \"\"/A\"\" indicates an amended filing). As you can see by looking at the 13-F filed for the quarter ending September 30 , the document isn't pretty or necessarily easy to read, hence the popularity of sites such as those that Chad linked to. It is, though, the truly official source from which websites tracking the Berkshire Hathaway portfolio derive their information.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7cde03f97710a3fc905a26ab7193e665", "text": "The DOW is just an index, which is simply a group of stocks meeting the criteria for inclusion. In the case of the DOW, it's the 30 US stocks with the largest market capitalization, but other indices include many lesser stocks (such as the S&P500 or the Russell 2000). The fact that Holobeam is no longer a constituent of the DOW30 probably shouldn't be taken in and of itself as a signal to sell the stock. As far as I can tell, HOOB stock is still trading on the Nasdaq exchange. However, it is extremely ill-liquid, which means that there are very few people willing to buy or sell it. Whether or not this would work to your advantage is almost entirely down to luck - it depends whether there is a keen buyer out there at the time you try to sell.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0d0fb6a1a06313f56e37e7e8b8c1b1f3", "text": "http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/economix/2014/04/02/the-many-classes-of-google-stock/ Are you counting both class A and other share classes?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3a66a5e43fcafe49252adcf58e4aacba", "text": "I will assume that you are not asking in the context of high frequency trading, as this is Personal Finance Stack Exchange. It is completely acceptable to trade odd lots for retail brokerage customers. The odd lot description that you provided in your link, from Interactive Brokers is correct. But even in that context, it says, regarding the acceptability of odd lots to stock exchanges: The exception is that odd lots can be routed to NYSE/ARCA/AMEX, but only as part of a basket order or as a market-on-close (MOC) order. Google GOOG is traded on the NASDAQ. Everything on the NASDAQ is electronic, and always has been. You will have no problem selling or buying less than 100 shares of Google. There is also an issue of higher commissions with odd lots: While trading commissions for odd lots may still be higher than for standard lots on a percentage basis, the popularity of online trading platforms and the consequent plunge in brokerage commissions means that it is no longer as difficult or expensive for investors to dispose of odd lots as it used to be in the past. Notice what it says about online trading making it easier, not more difficult, to trade odd lots.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b6a62a2fce4ea7b69f9998722e5496b0", "text": "\"I think for this a picture is worth a thousand words. This is a \"\"depth chart\"\" that I pulled from google images, specifically because it doesn't name any security. On the left you have all of the \"\"bids\"\" to buy this security, on the right you have the \"\"asks\"\" to sell the security. In the middle you have the bid/ask spread, this is the space between the highest bid and the lowest ask. As you can see you are free to place you order to the market to buy for 232, and someone else is free to place their order to the market to sell for 234. When the bid and the ask match there's a transaction for the maximum number of available shares. Alternatively, someone can place a market order to buy or sell and they'll just take the current market price. Retail investors don't really get access to this kind of chart from their brokers because for the most part the information isn't terribly relevant at the retail level.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6c5ca7d662d94602c34e16a3bfd8189c", "text": "Here in New Zealand we have a few Groupon clones, including our biggest one, GrabOne. Almost every day I see a daily deal on this website which is horrendously misleading. This despite NZ having some of the best consumer protection legislation in the world - not much sense in having the strongest policy if you aren't enforcing it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bd1a333f0d4845d3bfc8aa0017e0da31", "text": "\"Without any highly credible anticipation of a company being a target of a pending takeover, its common stock will normally trade at what can be considered non-control or \"\"passive market\"\" prices, i.e. prices that passive securities investors pay or receive for each share of stock. When there is talk or suggestion of a publicly traded company's being an acquisition target, it begins to trade at \"\"control market\"\" prices, i.e. prices that an investor or group of them is expected to pay in order to control the company. In most cases control requires a would-be control shareholder to own half a company's total votes (not necessarily stock) plus one additional vote and to pay a greater price than passive market prices to non-control investors (and sometimes to other control investors). The difference between these two market prices is termed a \"\"control premium.\"\" The appropriateness and value of this premium has been upheld in case law, with some conflicting opinions, in Delaware Chancery Court (see the reference below; LinkedIn Corp. is incorporated in the state), most other US states' courts and those of many countries with active stock markets. The amount of premium is largely determined by investment bankers who, in addition to applying other valuation approaches, review most recently available similar transactions for premiums paid and advise (formally in an \"\"opinion letter\"\") their clients what range of prices to pay or accept. In addition to increasing the likelihood of being outbid by a third-party, failure to pay an adequate premium is often grounds for class action lawsuits that may take years to resolve with great uncertainty for most parties involved. For a recent example and more details see this media opinion and overview about Dell Inc. being taken private in 2013, the lawsuits that transaction prompted and the court's ruling in 2016 in favor of passive shareholder plaintiffs. Though it has more to do with determining fair valuation than specifically premiums, the case illustrates instruments and means used by some courts to protect non-control, passive shareholders. ========== REFERENCE As a reference, in a 2005 note written by a major US-based international corporate law firm, it noted with respect to Delaware courts, which adjudicate most major shareholder conflicts as the state has a disproportionate share of large companies in its domicile, that control premiums may not necessarily be paid to minority shareholders if the acquirer gains control of a company that continues to have minority shareholders, i.e. not a full acquisition: Delaware case law is clear that the value of a dissenting [target company's] stockholder’s shares is not to be reduced to impose a minority discount reflecting the lack of the stockholders’ control over the corporation. Indeed, this appears to be the rationale for valuing the target corporation as a whole and allocating a proportionate share of that value to the shares of [a] dissenting stockholder [exercising his appraisal rights in seeking to challenge the value the target company's board of directors placed on his shares]. At the same time, Delaware courts have suggested, without explanation, that the value of the corporation as a whole, and as a going concern, should not include a control premium of the type that might be realized in a sale of the corporation.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "43d013fef9929ac7a88224abd9e987c9", "text": "Some companies like Royal Dutch Shell have multiple share classes to suit the tax regimes in Holland and the UK the A shares have dutch withholding tax applied and the B shares dont. Also some split capital investment trusts have multiple share classes http://www.trustnet.com/Education/Split.aspx?ms=1", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "418560ccfabd92b6f509f8e16d8243ea", "text": "Anyone who claims they can consistently beat the market and asks you to pay them to tell you how is a liar. This cannot be done, as the market adjusts itself. There's nothing they could possibly learn that analysts and institutional investors don't already know. They earn their money through the subscription fees, not through capital gains on their beat-the-market suggestions, that means that they don't have to rely on themselves to earn money, they only need you to rely on them. They have to provide proof because they cannot lie in advertisements, but if you read carefully, there are many small letters and disclaimers that basically remove any liability from them by saying that they don't take responsibility for anything and don't guarantee anything.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "97f41387c3e0e3a356c3818c5c8d2845", "text": "\"No. I glanced through the article you linked to. It's quite lengthy, but not compelling. I'd not lose any sleep over this. Others with far better credentials are making the opposite claim, that life is good and the Dow on its way to 20,000. Back to this guy - StansberryResearch.com Reviews – Legit or Scam? offers a look at this company. Stansberry calls his company \"\"one of the largest and most recognized investment research companies in the world\"\" but references to his firm call it a clearinghouse for other authors newsletters. Why would you give any more credence to his ranting than any other extreme prognostications? I suppose if I told you I never heard of him it would be pretty meaningless. I certainly haven't heard of every financial writer. But if he's one of the most recognized, you'd think I might have. Note, I've edited since seeing I was downvoted. But to the question author, you might want to summarize your questions in the future instead of linking to a video or 13,000 word rant. (when you click to shut the video, the text is available.)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "95ca67f26046fbfb3fe0ca5ce21f6426", "text": "Any investment company or online brokerage makes investing in their products easy. The hard part is choosing which fund(s) will earn you 12% and up.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "91b720167fd3efe4a248785f4df1a208", "text": "\"duffbeer's answers are reasonable for the specific question asked, but it seems to me the questioner is really wanting to know what stocks should I buy, by asking \"\"do you simply listen to 'experts' and hope they are right?\"\" Basic fundamental analysis techniques like picking stocks with a low PE or high dividend yield are probably unlikely to give returns much above the average market because many other people are applying the same well-known techniques.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "056358261bd7d431ecd3b8a082dfa3ce", "text": "\"I think the author is really on point here. Just read r/investing or seekingalpha or some other forum with low barriers to entry and you see the same phenomena. People like drama, and there's a convergence towards dramatic opinions and extremes. The scariest part is that while stock valuations are fairly subjective, it is very common to see top reddit comments that are verifiably false, on financial subjects or otherwise. At some point, I'd really like to take a web scraper to r/investing and see what the relationship between comments on certain companies and their stock performance is. Similarly, it'd be interesting to see if people who are right tend to stick around/people who stick around are more often correct. It'd also be interesting to compare the \"\"reddit consensus\"\" with actual analyst consensus and to see where it differs. It might make a good master's thesis. On the other hand, I'm not convinced that the traditional punditry is necessarily better. Professionals are generally more articulate and ought to be able to highlight the relevant details in a company or sector. However, the 2 minute segments they have with these professionals on CNBC are basically just noise when compared with hour long analyst calls, and I've never found them particularly useful for extracting more than a very 1000-kilometer high view on a topic that I know nothing about. I think longer form publications like actual interviews, where the guests are on for a longer period of time, or print articles from WSJ/FT/etc. are still good quality, but even financial media has really been catering to the lowest common denominator with free or televised content. In any case, I think this really reduces down to an issue of critical thinking. Random internet comments can actually be really insightful, or garbage, but most people can't discern the two. I think the same applies to punditry too, however.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8c755610386012c509020b65c42c3891", "text": "\"Yes, there is a very good Return vs Risk graph put out at riskgrades.com. Look at it soon, because it will be unavailable after 6-30-11. The RA (return analysis) graph is what I think you are looking for. The first graph shown is an \"\"Average Return\"\", which I was told was for a 3 year period. Three period returns of 3, 6 and 12 months, are also available. You can specify the ticker symbols of funds or stocks you want a display of. For funds, the return includes price and distributions (total return), but only price movement for stocks - per site webmaster. I've used the graphs for a few years, since Forbes identified it as a \"\"Best of the Web\"\" site. Initially, I found numerous problems with some of the data and was able to work with the webmaster to correct them. Lately though, they have NOT been correcting problems that I bring to their attention. For example, try the symbols MUTHX, EDITX, AWSHX and you'll see that the Risk Grades on the graphs are seriously in error, and compress the graph results and cause overwriting and poor readability. If anyone knows of a similar product, I'd like to know about it. Thanks, George\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9e6f5a82008f9330d2061b78d7cbadd5", "text": "I spent a while looking for something similar a few weeks back and ended up getting frustrated and asking to borrow a friend's Bloombterg. I wish you the best of luck finding something, but I wasn't able to. S&amp;P and Morningstar have some stuff on their site, but I wasn't able to make use of it. Edit: Also, Bloomberg allows shared terminals. Depending on how much you think as a firm, these questions might come up, it might be worth the 20k / year", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c5d52f458009e1d55a880e53e2925556", "text": "\"This functionality is widely available, not only on brokerage sites, but also financial management and even financial information sites. For instance, two of the latter are Google Finance and Yahoo Finance. If you are logged in, they let you create \"\"portfolios\"\" listing your stocks and, optionally, the size of your holdings in that stock (which you don't need if you are just \"\"watching\"\" a stock). Then you can visit the site at any time and see the current valuations.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3a16e38607c9d834e9d46ff63df423c5", "text": "No I get that. But if you don’t want risk, then buy bonds. Long term an S&amp;P Index has very low risk. On the other hand, actively managed funds have fees that take out a ton of the gain that could be had. I don’t have time to look for the study but I read recently that 97% of actively managed funds were outperformed by S&amp;P Indexes after fees. Now I don’t know about you but I think the risk of not picking a top 3% fund is probably higher than the safe return of index’s.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4f3d40924805aae62ffe3085c2320a24", "text": "\"Even if we accept these claims as being true, neither the fact that their clients are more confident, nor the fact that people who use an investment professional have a higher net worth tells you anything about the value of the service that such professionals provide. Judging a service provider is a complex matter where you take into account multiple variables but the main ones are the cost and quality of the service, the cost and quality of doing it yourself and the value you assign to your time and effort. I think it's highly likely that professional gardeners will on average maintain larger gardens than those who do their own garden work. And any professional will have more experience at his profession than an average member of the public. But to determine if hiring a professional is objectively \"\"better\"\" requires defining what that word means. Finance is a bit weird in that respect since we actually do have objective ways of measuring results by looking at performance over time. But since the quotes you give here don't address that at all, we can simply conclude that they do not make the case for anything related to financial performance.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4ae6972f811456604fe65183a6d76c6a", "text": "I have used TradeKing for a couple of years now and love it. It really is a great site. They hold an IRA trading account for me and have been helpful in rolling money into that account, and with answering the occasional question. Previously I have used Scottrade and found that TradeKing is a much better value.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4fcf665ffa10c9f80ce5d25907cfd42c", "text": "The following have been recommended to me for the UK: When I was doing my investigations, all had good reputations but Interactive Investor looked to have the nicer service and their fees seemed a bit more reasonable. TD Waterhouse has the advantage of a number of sites serving local markets (TD Ameritrade for the US, for instance).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0a7f714f0a3b50be1430a11363a34698", "text": "Aswath Damodaran's [Investment Valuation 3rd edition](http://www.amazon.com/Investment-Valuation-Techniques-Determining-University/dp/1118130731/ref=sr_1_12?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1339995852&amp;sr=8-12&amp;keywords=aswath+damodaran) (or save money and go with a used copy of the [2nd edition](http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/0471414905/ref=dp_olp_used?ie=UTF8&amp;condition=used)) He's a professor at Stern School of Business. His [website](http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/) and [blog](http://aswathdamodaran.blogspot.com/) are good resources as well. [Here is his support page](http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/New_Home_Page/Inv3ed.htm) for his Investment Valuation text. It includes chapter summaries, slides, ect. If you're interested in buying the text you can get an idea of what's in it by checking that site out.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1929ac11a6e569a0b83fa76ec93b5d44", "text": "The Motley Fool is generally regarded as relatively legit, at least in that they're not likely to do anything outright fraudulent and they definitely have reasonably in-depth content to provide you. The Motley Fool makes a fair amount of money off the subscriptions, though, and they do hawk them quite violently. If I didn't have a generally good opinion of them to begin with, I'd have been completely put off as well. It's pretty shameful. I don't think it's worth hundreds of dollars a year, but then again, I don't look at investing as a second career like the Fool likes to suggest, either.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "152453e3dd4160ad911a83d6174111fe", "text": "and this is a sure sign that their advice is worthless.. if their research was worth the paper that it is written on, they would be using that research to make money trading, instead of trying to sell their research to their clients. how many times have we said that traders that can trade will trade, but that traders that can not trade, they will teach. and the fact that they are charging so much for their research should be a sign or an indication that there is perhaps a sense of desperation in this organization to quickly raise some money quickly and desperately. people that dont really know where the treasure is buried at will sell treasure maps.. people that do know where the treasure is buried will dig for buried treasure.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1940348e30b01c2494e3e8aeb301fb11", "text": "\"Generally, yes. Rather than ask, \"\"why are these guys so cheap?\"\", you should be asking why the big names are so expensive. :) Marketing spend plays a big role there. Getting babies to shill for your company during the super bowl requires a heck of a lot of commissions. Due to the difficulties involved in setting up a brokerage, it's unlikely that you'll see a scam. A brokerage might go bankrupt for random reasons, but that's what investor insurance is for. \"\"Safeness\"\" is mostly the likelihood that you'll be able to get access to your funds on deposit with the broker. Investment funds are insured by SIPC for up to $500,000, with a lower limit on cash. The specific limits vary by broker, with some offering greater protection paid for on their own dime. Check with the broker -- it's usually on their web pages under \"\"Security\"\". Funds in \"\"cash\"\" might be swept into an interest-earning investment vehicle for which insurance is different, and that depends on the broker, too. A few Forex brokers went bankrupt last year, although that's a new market with fewer regulatory protections for traders. I heard that one bankruptcy in the space resulted in a 7% loss for traders with accounts there, and that there was a Ponzi-ish scam company as well. Luckily, the more stringent regulation of stock brokerages makes that space much safer for investors. If you want to assess the reliability of an online broker, I suggest the following: It's tempting to look at when the brokerage was founded. Fly-by-night scams, by definition, won't be around very long -- and usually that means under a few months. Any company with a significant online interface will have to have been around long enough to develop that client interface, their backend databases, and the interface with the markets and their clearing house. The two brokerages you mentioned have been around for 7+ years, so that lends strength to the supposition of a strong business model. That said, there could well be a new company that offers services or prices that fit your investment need, and in that case definitely look into their registrations and third-party reviews. Finally, note that the smaller, independent brokerages will probably have stiffer margin rules. If you're playing a complex, novel, and/or high-risk strategy that can't handle the volatility of a market crash, even a short excursion such as the 2010 flash crash, stiff margin rules might have consequences that a novice investor would rather pretend didn't exist.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "0e3085ac5c2dcd51f5a17ac8f04f1cdb", "text": "\"This information is clearly \"\"material\"\" (large impact) and \"\"non-public\"\" according to the statement of the problem. Also, decisions like United States v. Carpenter make it clear that you do not need to be a member of the company to do illegal insider trading on its stock. Importantly though, stackexchange is not a place for legal advice and this answer should not be construed as such. Legal/compliance at Company A would be a good place to start asking questions.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "e51a130fe1c7a6a69cca14afabb9d37e", "text": "Whether or not you want to abstain or throw away the proxy, one reason it's important to at least read the circular is to find out if any of the proposals deal with increasing the company's common stock. When this happens, it can dilute your shares and have an effect on your ownership percentage in the company and shareholder voting control.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5e07711725e88f3c785686eb535ef03b", "text": "\"I think you need to realize that regardless of whether they are \"\"shady\"\" or not, owners/founders are by and large in it for themselves. You as an employee as just a resource - why should they divulge their finances to you? You won't offend them if you pry and ask for it, but they simply are not going to give you the straight up. They will give you a bare minimum or some song and dance that beats around the bush without actually telling you what you need to know. In regards to whether you should buy the restricted shares: why not? Startups are a gamble anyway. So simply decide how much you're willing to gamble, and spend that much buying some shares. I mean, you're already taking the gamble by accepting a lower salary in exchange for equity which, in all likelihood, will never be worth anything anyway.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "28ec486934904404fe18e53cf843ce76", "text": "\"Here is one \"\"other consideration\"\": don't, don't, don't sell based on insider information. Insider trading can land you in jail. And it's not restricted to top executives. Even overhearing a discussion about the current status of the acquisition talks can mean that you have insider information that you legally cannot act on in many jurisdictions. If you are just a regular employee, the SEC will likely not subject your dealings to special scrutiny, especially since lots of your colleagues will likely trade your company's shares at this point in time. And if you definitely hold insider info (for example, if you are intimately involved with the acquisition talks), you will likely have had a very serious warning about insider trading and know what you can and what you cannot do. Nevertheless, it's better to be careful here.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2c43e5bdc8ef37b2bc35db788047d6e0", "text": "I suggest you contact head of the company your are interested in, ask if he or she owns a controlling interest. If so offer to buy him out.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e44598dada0a8ebf91496f7b40fd3b2c", "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.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9e9c9cec3c9de303788378a493ed49f9", "text": "The 10-K language is very specific. And as someone that has worked w/ securities attorneys to write these things, I know it is worded like that for a reason. Regardless, to have that risk factor in there and not disclose executives leaving is really shoddy disclosure.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "84684ca8001220b80db21a461e7b2e21", "text": "You won't be able to know the trading activity in a timely, actionable method in most cases. The exception is if the investor (individual, fund, holding company, non-profit foundation, etc) is a large shareholder of a specific company and therefore required to file their intentions to buy or sell with the SEC. The threshold for this is usually if they own 5% or greater of the outstanding shares. You can, however, get a sense of the holdings for some of the entities you mention with some sleuthing. Publicly-Traded Holding Companies Since you mention Warren Buffett, Berkshire Hathaway is an example of this. Publicly traded companies (that are traded on a US-based exchange) have to file numerous reports with the SEC. Of these, you should review their Annual Report and monitor all filings on the SEC's website. Here's the link to the Berkshire Hathaway profile. Private Foundations Harvard and Yale have private, non-profit foundations. The first place to look would be at the Form 990 filings each is required to file with the IRS. Two sources for these filings are GuideStar.org and the FoundationCenter.org. Keep in mind that if the private foundation is a large enough shareholder in a specific company, they, too, will be required to file their intentions to buy or sell shares in that company. Private Individuals Unless the individual publicly releases their current holdings, the only insight you may get is what they say publicly or have to disclose — again, if they are a major shareholder.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "51ad976b1e5d211f36c818bfef24e2a1", "text": "Is there any precedent for companies trading on their own insider information for the benefit of stockholders? Said another way, if a company were to enter a new market where they were very confident of their ability to steamroll a public competitor, could they use a wholly-owned special-purpose investment vehicle to short that competitor in order to juice the benefit of that move?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6509a8ab9ef0eed5eaff9b3b0df4e1f3", "text": "Calling insider trading theft is a pretty big stretch. I think it should remain illegal as it's not great for markets and undermines investor faith, if the people that bought stock from this guy wanted the stock they would have gotten it anyways.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a4ed4fb03c9a393b737c5da1e8f0a6fe", "text": "No chance. First off, unless the company provides audited financials (and they don't from what I can tell), there is no way I'm tinkering with a bunch of small business owners. Transparency is a substantial part of investing and this actually exempts or excludes these companies, from what I can tell.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0d7c47268b8731b24a5cc95a73efbe03", "text": "\"How on earth can you possibly know what is going on in individual company X? The sole exception is if it is your own company. The stock markets of the world are in fact a nest of sharks. The big sharks essentially make money out of the little sharks. Some little sharks manage not to be eaten, and grow bigger. Good luck with that. \"\"Insider trading\"\" is, when found out, a crime these days. But \"\"insider knowledge\"\", \"\"insider hints\"\", \"\"knowledge of market sentiment\"\" and indeed just rumours about a given company are the kinds of things you won't particularly get to hear of in the fog of disinformation, and don't particularly want to waste your time with for a very uncertain loss or gain at the end of the year. The thing I find annoying about mutual funds is that they can be very stupid, and I speculate that it may be the consequence of the marketing on the one hand, and the commission structure on the other. I started cashing in my funds in late 2007, following the collapse of Northern Rock here in the UK. The \"\"2008\"\" crisis was in fact the slowest economic car crash in history. But very very few mutual funds saw, or seemed to see, the way the wind was blowing, and switch massively to cash. If the punters had the courage to hang on, of course, mostly stocks bounced back in 2009 and 2010. Moral: remember you can cash your stuff in any time you want.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "97bc32553a9af221bb08bc2e513dbf7c", "text": "I am a flight attendant on a private jet and I hear a bank CEO discussing a merger or a buyout. I proceed to purchase that stock before the announcement. The CEO did not tell me to buy it, I just overheard him. If you are a flight attendant on a private jet that is operated by one of the principals, probably including a bank, attorney, consultant, broker, etc., in the merger or buyout, then you probably have a fiduciary duty to safeguard the information and are prohibited from trading. Please see: http://www.kiplinger.com/article/investing/T052-C008-S001-would-you-be-guilty-of-insider-trading.html You’re a janitor at a major company. You hear members of the company’s board convening outside the room you’re cleaning and decide to hide in the closet. The board okays a deal to sell the company for a fat premium to the current share price. You load up on the shares. Illegal insider trading? Definitely. This is not a public place, and “you’d be in a position to understand that confidential information was being disclosed, which changes the calculus,” says Andrew Stoltmann, a Chicago-based securities lawyer. Also see: http://meyersandheim.com/how-to-win-an-insider-trading-case/ However, between these two extremes of a bystander with no duty to the corporation and a corporate officer with a clear duty to the corporation stood a whole group of people such as printers, lawyers and others who were involved in non-public transactions that did not necessarily have a duty to the company whose securities they traded. To address this group of people the courts developed the misappropriation theory. The misappropriation theory covers people who posses inside information and who are prohibited from trading on such information because they owe a duty to a third party and not the corporation whose securities are traded. Yours is the perfect example. You owe a duty to your employer to operate in its best interests. As for the broader, more common example, where you overhear information in an elevator, restaurant, in line at the coffee shop, etc., trading on such information was found not to be insider trading in SEC v. Switzer: http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/590/756/2247092/ In this case, Mr. Switzer overheard information at a track meet and traded on it with profits. The court found: The information was inadvertently overheard by Switzer at the track meet. Rule 10b-5 does not bar trading on the basis of information inadvertently revealed by an insider. On the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, the court orders judgment in favor of defendants.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "92768dee365616e7e3535a2c9173de93", "text": "\"No. And furthermore, canceling based on insider information is not considered insider trading. SEC Interpretation from October of 2000: (a) Does the act of terminating a plan while aware of material nonpublic information result in liability under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5? No. Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 apply \"\"in connection with the purchase or sale of any security.\"\" Thus, a purchase or sale of a security must be present for liability to attach. See Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores, 421 U.S. 723 (1975). [link mine] A 10b5-2 is a rule in the SEC's section in federal law that governs trading on \"\"material nonpublic information.\"\" Fried (2002) even concluded that: The SEC's safe harbour permitting insiders to buy or sell shares pursuant to prearranged trading plans while in possession of material nonpublic information and to cancel the plans while aware of material nonpublic information enables insiders to profit from their access to such information. The SEC could easily eliminate insider's advantages over public shareholders by not allowing insiders to cancel their plans after becoming aware of material nonpublic information.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "74aa3ca9abe89674b3ab4253d0438286", "text": "\"I'm surprised at the tone of the answers to this question! Trading with insider information is corruption and encourages fraud. As in many areas, there's an ethical line where behavior the gap between \"\"ok\"\" and \"\"illegal\"\" or unethical is thin. The classic local government insider information example is when the local councilman finds out that a highway exit is being constructed in an area that consists mostly of farmland. Knowing this, he buys out the farmers at what they think is a premium, and turns around for 10x profit a few months later. In that context, do you think that the councilman acting on that insider information is committing a crime or ethical lapse? Most people say yes. Even in this case, the line is thin. If the same councilman has his finger on the pulse of growth patterns in the area, and realizes that the terrain makes a certain area a prime candiate for a highway and exit, buying up land would not be criminal -- but it would be risky as it creates a perception that he is abusing his position.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9bdda7296f9e32ac24388bd7c85f9be7", "text": "I sold my Microsoft stock when they appointed him CEO (It was like $1000 worth.. nothing wild) because they hired an insider. I thought they needed an outsider. It's up like 200% since he was hired... turns out he was an outsider all along..", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "83e3d39d20866a2ab99c351df1393e0e", "text": "\"robinhood is a member of finra, just like any other broker. as such, they can't legally \"\"lose\"\" your assets. even if they file bankruptcy, you will get your money back. obviously, any broker can steal your assets, but i doubt robinhood is any more likely to steal from you, even if you are rich. here is a quote from an article on thestreet.com: So, despite the name, the Robinhood philosophy isn't about stealing from rich, but rather taking perks often reserved for top-tier investors and giving them to the everyman trader\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "1479bfc3f23662f17bdf12c0074e13f8", "text": "\"I like Muro questions! No, I don't think they do. Because for me, as a personal finance investor type just trying to save for retirement, they mean nothing. If I cannot tell what the basic business model of a company is, and how that business model is profitable and makes money, then that is a \"\"no buy\"\" for me. If I do understand it, they I can do some more looking into the stock and company and see if I want to purchase. I buy index funds that are indexes of industries and companies I can understand. I let a fund manager worry about the details, but I get myself in the right ballpark and I use a simple logic test to get there, not the word of a rating agency. If belong in the system as a whole, I could not really say. I could not possibly do the level of accounting research and other investigation that rating agencies do, so even if the business model is sound I might lose an investment because the company is not an ethical one. Again, that is the job of my fund manager to determine. Furthermore and I mitigate that risk by buying indexes instead of individual stock.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5e6f8d2a7fd5e271ad038b24af47df6a", "text": "\"I can't imagine how a company that has all the proof it needs of its existence and business dealings is able to be challenged in this way. Fact is, they were doing business first. The insurance company has no claim to make. (I'm not a lawyer, my observation there is based on what's right and logical...perhaps the law disagrees and if so, that law is as crooked as the judge who thinks the request for the insurance company's business dealings off \"\"frivolous\"\"). They may have messed up. That's because the evidence looks pretty \"\"open and shut\"\". Too bad for them they're getting pushed around on the basis of \"\"I'm bigger\"\" I guess, huh? I don't see why this means they're on their own. Edit: I didn't see the part about the dillusion suit. Definitely brought it on themselves, still being harassed; and insurance company has no right to shut them or their site down.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0c1c1437ed0dd486a5e53b6e385afb39", "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).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "00012980cb677d66afe97ba8772cd9cf", "text": "\"A credit default swap is like insurance on a bond, but it isn't. The cash flows just move similarly. They didn't buy insurance on anything. They just bought a contract. A put \"\"is like\"\" downside insurance on a stock. But of course you can still buy them. Investing in TIPS \"\"is like\"\" buying inflation insurance, but it isn't.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6241d19ae4f4a34d2000f940bf82e549", "text": "The issue is the time frame. With a one year investment horizon the only way for a fund manager to be confident that they are not going to lose their shirt is to invest your money in ultra conservative low volatility investments. Otherwise a year like 2008 in the US stock market would break them. Note if you are willing to expand your payback time period to multiple years then you are essentially looking at an annuity and it's market loss rider. Of course those contacts are always structured such that the insurance company is extremely confident that they will be able to make more in the market than they are promising to pay back (multiple decade time horizons).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2b1de55896bf170719c483303ca3c084", "text": "Short answer is yes, all the firms are required to keep enough resources on hand to pay claims that may arise from even extreme events like the recent hurricanes. Insurance firms are rated based on their claims-paying ability and it is absolutely critical for them to maintain enough cushion to pay claims. If insureds lose confidence, they won't be able to write any more business, and they are done. In addition, to manage tail risks, primary insurers like Allstate will often purchase reinsurance. So, for example, Allstate might go to Swiss Re and buy a policy that kicks in once Allstate's liability exceeds $5bn for a given event.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fb9010f18a4e49aa74aab3af0e2b48b8", "text": "\"The general answer to any \"\"is it worth it\"\" insurance question is \"\"no,\"\" because the insurance company is making a profit on the insurance.* To decide if you want the insurance, you need to figure out how much you can afford to pay if something happens, how much they cover, and how badly you want to transfer your risk to them. If you won't have trouble coming up with the $4000 deductible should you need to, then don't get this extra insurance. * I did not mean to imply that insurance is always a bad idea or that insurance companies are cheating their customers. Please let me explain further. When you buy any product from a business, that business is making a profit. And there is nothing wrong with that at all. They are providing a service and should be compensated for their efforts. Insurance companies also provide a service, but unlike other types of businesses, their product is monetary. You pay them money now, and they might pay you money later. If they pay you more money then you spent, you came out ahead, and if you spend more money then they give you, it was a loss for you. In order for the insurance company to make a profit, they need to bring in more money than they pay out. In fact, they need to bring in a lot more money then they pay out, because in addition to their profit, they have all the overhead of running a business. As a result, on average, you will come out behind when you purchase insurance. This means that when you are on the fence about whether or not to purchase any insurance product, the default choice should be \"\"no.\"\" On average, you are financially better off without insurance. Now, that doesn't mean you should never buy insurance. As mentioned by commenter @xiaomy, insurance companies spread risk across all of their customers. If I am in a situation where I have a risk of financial ruin in a certain circumstance, I can eliminate that risk by purchasing insurance. For example, I have term life insurance, because if I were to pass away, it would be financially catastrophic for my family. (I'm hoping that the insurance company makes 100% profit on that deal!) I also continue to buy expensive health insurance because an unexpected medical event would be financially devastating. However, I always decline the extended warranty when I buy a $300 appliance, because I don't have any trouble coming up with another $300 in the unlikely event that it breaks, and I would rather keep the money than contribute to the profits of an insurance company unnecessarily. In my original answer above, I pointed out how you would determine whether or not to purchase this particular insurance product. This product pays out a bunch of relatively small amounts for certain events, up to a limit of $4000. Would this $4000 be hard for you to come up with if you needed to? If so, get the insurance. But if you are like me and have an emergency fund in place to handle things like this, then you are financially better off declining this policy.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "04592407c943511a0496706a31ba97c7", "text": "\"Insurance is a financial product to control risk. The fact that a loss would not be catastrophic simply makes the decision to carry insurance less critical. It is perfectly reasonable to be \"\"self-insured\"\" in this case. This is assuming we are discussing replacement of your property vs liability (which you have made clear). Like many other products one buys, a fine reason to purchase insurance is simply because one wants to. Just because you can absorb the loss, does not mean that you want to take on the full risk. I would be careful of your analysis here: Insurance companies on average make money by selling insurance, which means you lose money on average by dealing with them Insurance companies make money based on the cumulative probability that they will have to pay on multiple policies. To make money, they analyze the risk that in a given period they will only pay on a portion of their hundreds of thousands or millions of policies. This is a different analysis than the probability that you will have a loss on your specific asset. Your risk of a loss is not equivalent to their risk of loss here. The argument that they only 'win' if you individually 'lose' is not a good one.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c2ca8406e4807b811f02c7a22a787b2c", "text": "\"Or it could be a Robinhood user just messing around with their free commissions. I've seen \"\"people that work for organizations\"\" and other analysts go crazy over some completely benign activity. It is like playing poker with a newbie, unpredictable.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "418560ccfabd92b6f509f8e16d8243ea", "text": "Anyone who claims they can consistently beat the market and asks you to pay them to tell you how is a liar. This cannot be done, as the market adjusts itself. There's nothing they could possibly learn that analysts and institutional investors don't already know. They earn their money through the subscription fees, not through capital gains on their beat-the-market suggestions, that means that they don't have to rely on themselves to earn money, they only need you to rely on them. They have to provide proof because they cannot lie in advertisements, but if you read carefully, there are many small letters and disclaimers that basically remove any liability from them by saying that they don't take responsibility for anything and don't guarantee anything.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "62018e52ddd02eed1e4c34166f6a7ae2", "text": "\"There are several such \"\"lists.\"\" The one that is maintained by the company is called the shareholder registry. That is a list that the company has given to it by the brokerage firms. It is a start, but not a full list, because many individual shareholders hold their stock with say Merrill Lynch, in \"\"street name\"\" or anonymously. A more useful list is the one of institutional ownership maintained by the SEC. Basically, \"\"large\"\" holders (of more than 5 percent of the stock) have to register their holdings with the SEC. More to the point, large holders of stocks, the Vanguards, Fidelitys, etc. over a certain size, have to file ALL their holdings of stock with the SEC. These are the people you want to contact if you want to start a proxy fight. The most comprehensive list is held by the Depositary Trust Company. People try to get that list only in rare instances.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d1b408b65407c57eb00dd74769540cce", "text": "\"Yes, there is a lot they are leaving out, and I would be extremely skeptical of them because of the \"\"reasons\"\" they give for being able to charge $0 commissions. Their reasons are that they don't have physical locations and high overhead costs, the reality is that they are burning venture capital on exchange fees until they actually start charging everyone they suckered into opening accounts. They also get paid by exchanges when users provide liquidity. These are called trade rebates in the maker-taker model. They will start offering margin accounts and charging interest. They are [likely] selling trade data to high frequency trading firms that then fill your stock trades at worse prices (Robinhood users are notorious for complaining about the fills). They may well be able to keep commissions low, as that has been a race to the bottom for a long time. But if they were doing their users any actual favors, then they would be also paying users the rebates that exchanges pay them for liquidity. Robinhood isn't doing anything unique as all brokers do what I mentioned along with charging commissions, and it is actually amazing their sales pitch \"\"$0 commissions because we are just a mobile app lol\"\" was enough for their customers. They are just being disingenuous.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "19c215406af14db05a1acffe9423ae75", "text": "Nothing. Stockbrokers set up nominee accounts, in which they hold shares on behalf of individual investors. Investors are still the legal owners of the shares but their names do not appear on the company’s share register. Nominee accounts are ring-fenced from brokers’ other activities so they are financially secure.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6523aca8e7fae2c1faf0abafcaf00227", "text": "\"So...if the stock market tanks, the value of these portfolios tank...but faster. The difference time around being that the customers will be holding all of the toxic assets? I also gotta say that it feels like there's a lot of, \"\"hey let's sell insurance and hope that nothing bad ever happens but if it does we go bankrupt and the customer's fucked too!\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "33a82e50f4873ea3969a1e81d48b046c", "text": "\"Agreed, but often it seems that gray area is exactly what these \"\"innovations\"\" are looking for. Repeatedly pushing down onto the struggling individual the past responsibilities of the wealthy corporation. Say this thing picks up steam and is revitalizing Walmart. John is walking out the door and \"\"critical\"\" deliveries need to be made. John was a bit short last month and couldn't wait for the 2 week insurance reimbursement process. So despite the team lead's prodding, didn't upgrade his insurance coverage this month. He didn't want to be \"\"that guy\"\" so didn't confirm/deny getting modifying coverage to the lead. The team lead asks John to take the packages, but doesn't really follow through on the insurance check. John wrecks his car and his back. John's insurance company rejects the claim. The team lead and John are fired because not checking/having the insurance was against written policy, but winked and nodded away all the way back up to the #1 online retailer spot. So often, obstacles are easily surmounted. I get the \"\"personal responsibility\"\" angle for all involved, but social/financial pressure can be brutal. The problem is that situations are left as is and the moneyed parties are \"\"enrichingly ignorant\"\". My guess is few compile stats on SOL Uber/Lyft drivers in similar situations.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "de2b0f54bb412b964dac669ed6ced647", "text": "\"Off the top of my head, I don't know of any publicly-traded companies that routinely earmark distributions as return of capital, but theoretically, it's certainly applicable to any publicly-traded company. The Wikipedia article gives one situation in which a publicly-traded company may use return of capital: Public business may return capital as a means to increase the debt/equity ratio and increase their leverage (risk profile). Since return of capital is a distribution, it shrinks the firm's equity, thus increasing its leverage. Investopedia also has an article, Dividend Facts You May Not Know, that gives an example of when return of capital might be used: Sometimes, especially in the case of a special, large dividend, part of the dividend is actually declared by the company to be a return of capital. In this case, instead of being taxed at the time of distribution, the return of capital is used to reduce the basis of the stock, making for a larger capital gain down the road, assuming the selling price is higher than the basis. For instance, if you buy shares with a basis of $10 each and you get a $1 special dividend, 55 cents of which is return of capital, the taxable dividend is 45 cents, the new basis is $9.45 and you will pay capital gains tax on that 55 cents when you sell your shares sometime in the future. A company may choose to earmark some or all of its distribution as return of capital in order to provide shareholders with a more beneficial tax treatment. The IRS describes this different tax treatment: Distributions that qualify as a return of capital are not dividends. A return of capital is a return of some or all of your investment in the stock of the company. A return of capital reduces the basis of your stock. These distributions don't necessarily count as taxable income, except in some instances: Once the basis of your stock has been reduced to zero, any further non-dividend distribution is capital gain. The IRS also states: A distribution generally qualifies as a return of capital if the corporation making the distribution does not have any accumulated or current year earnings and profits. In this case, the firm is lowering its equity because it's paying distributions out of that equity instead of accumulated earnings/profits. A company may use return of capital to maintain a distribution even in times of financial difficulty. In the context of closed-end funds, however, return of capital can be much more complicated and can affect the fund's performance and reputation in numerous ways. Also, JB King is correct in cautioning you that \"\"return of capital\"\" is not the same thing as \"\"return on capital*. The latter is a method for valuing a company and determining \"\"how efficient a company is where it comes to using its resources.\"\" (to quote JB King's comment again).\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "425ca438f571c50d943009d1bf53592a", "text": "Do what's outlined here. The capital asset pricing model will reveal how an asset (a stock in this instance) performed relative to the market performance for that time period. This by itself will answer your assignment's question but allowing you to traverse much deeper in the intricate details of the field. You'll learn a few interesting things on the way! Good luck :)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bb40365ea193ef944818cd92378da144", "text": "He said he's using MSCI World as a benchmark. MSCI World is not an exchange. The point is the same security listed in different places has different prices, so how do you describe the equity beta of the company to MSCI World if you have multiple and different return streams? This is a real problem to consider and you just dismiss it entirely.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "83ee753bf0e789e557df6966e4cfcbc9", "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.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7cd4bc1c1743be97be65b364924cfbaa", "text": "\"I don't know if it's common or necessary to include capital stock as a liability? Yes, if you look at the title of the nonasset part of the balance sheet it actually is titled \"\"Liabilities and Shareholders' Equity\"\". Your capital stock is a component of Equity. This sounds like it was reported in a reasonable manner. \"\"$2,582 listed under Loans from Shareholders (Line 19).\"\" Did you have a basis issue with your distributions? That is did you take shareholder distributions more than your adjusted basis that you have been taxed on? I have seen the practice of considering distributions in excess of basis as short term loans to prevent the additional taxation of the excess distribution. Be careful when you adjust this entry, your balance sheet had to roll from one year to the next. You must have a reasonable transaction to substantiate the removal of the shareholder loan.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3ffd7588e47bdcfbf842058ec577af8f", "text": "\"Answering this question is weird, because it is not really precise in what you mean. Do you want all stocks in the US? Do you want a selection of stocks according to parameters? Do you just want a cool looking graph? However, your possible misuse of the word derivative piqued my interest. Your reference to gold and silver seems to indicate that you do not know what a derivative actually is. Or what it would do in a portfolio. The straightforward way to \"\"see\"\" an efficient frontier is to do the following. For a set of stocks (in this case six \"\"randomly\"\" selected ones): library(quantmod) library(fPortfolio) library(PerformanceAnalytics) getSymbols(c(\"\"STZ\"\", \"\"RAI\"\", \"\"AMZN\"\", \"\"MSFT\"\", \"\"TWX\"\", \"\"RHT\"\"), from = \"\"2012-06-01\"\", to = \"\"2017-06-01\"\") returns &lt;- NULL tickerlist &lt;- c(\"\"STZ\"\", \"\"RAI\"\", \"\"AMZN\"\", \"\"MSFT\"\", \"\"TWX\"\", \"\"RHT\"\") for (ticker in tickerlist){ returns &lt;- cbind(returns, monthlyReturn(Ad(eval(as.symbol(ticker))))) } colnames(returns) &lt;- tickerlist returns &lt;- as.timeSeries(returns) frontier &lt;- portfolioFrontier(returns) png(\"\"frontier.png\"\", width = 800, height = 600) plot(frontier, which = \"\"all\"\") dev.off() minvariancePortfolio(returns, constraints = \"\"LongOnly\"\") Portfolio Weights: STZ RAI AMZN MSFT TWX RHT 0.1140 0.3912 0.0000 0.1421 0.1476 0.2051 Covariance Risk Budgets: STZ RAI AMZN MSFT TWX RHT 0.1140 0.3912 0.0000 0.1421 0.1476 0.2051 Target Returns and Risks: mean Cov CVaR VaR 0.0232 0.0354 0.0455 0.0360 https://imgur.com/QIxDdEI The minimum variance portfolio of these six assets has a mean return is 0.0232 and variance is 0.0360. AMZN does not get any weight in the portfolio. It kind of means that the other assets span it and it does not provide any additional diversification benefit. Let us add two ETFs that track gold and silver to the mix, and see how little difference it makes: getSymbols(c(\"\"GLD\"\", \"\"SLV\"\"), from = \"\"2012-06-01\"\", to = \"\"2017-06-01\"\") returns &lt;- NULL tickerlist &lt;- c(\"\"STZ\"\", \"\"RAI\"\", \"\"AMZN\"\", \"\"MSFT\"\", \"\"TWX\"\", \"\"RHT\"\", \"\"GLD\"\", \"\"SLV\"\") for (ticker in tickerlist){ returns &lt;- cbind(returns, monthlyReturn(Ad(eval(as.symbol(ticker))))) } colnames(returns) &lt;- tickerlist returns &lt;- as.timeSeries(returns) frontier &lt;- portfolioFrontier(returns) png(\"\"weights.png\"\", width = 800, height = 600) weightsPlot(frontier) dev.off() # Optimal weights out &lt;- minvariancePortfolio(returns, constraints = \"\"LongOnly\"\") wghts &lt;- getWeights(out) portret1 &lt;- returns%*%wghts portret1 &lt;- cbind(monthprc, portret1)[,3] colnames(portret1) &lt;- \"\"Optimal portfolio\"\" # Equal weights wghts &lt;- rep(1/8, 8) portret2 &lt;- returns%*%wghts portret2 &lt;- cbind(monthprc, portret2)[,3] colnames(portret2) &lt;- \"\"Equal weights portfolio\"\" png(\"\"performance_both.png\"\", width = 800, height = 600) par(mfrow=c(2,2)) chart.CumReturns(portret1, ylim = c(0, 2)) chart.CumReturns(portret2, ylim = c(0, 2)) chart.Drawdown(portret1, main = \"\"Drawdown\"\", ylim = c(-0.06, 0)) chart.Drawdown(portret2, main = \"\"Drawdown\"\", ylim = c(-0.06, 0)) dev.off() https://imgur.com/sBHGz7s Adding gold changes the minimum variance mean return to 0.0116 and the variance stays about the same 0.0332. You can see how the weights change at different return and variance profiles in the picture. The takeaway is that adding gold decreases the return but does not do a lot for the risk of the portfolio. You also notice that silver does not get included in the minimum variance efficient portfolio (and neither does AMZN). https://imgur.com/rXPbXau We can also compare the optimal weights to an equally weighted portfolio and see that the latter would have performed better but had much larger drawdowns. Which is because it has a higher volatility, which might be undesirable. --- Everything below here is false, but illustrative. So what about the derivative part? Let us assume you bought an out of the money call option with a strike of 50 on MSFT at the beginning of the time series and held it to the end. We need to decide on the the annualized cost-of-carry rate, the annualized rate of interest, the time to maturity is measured in years, the annualized volatility of the underlying security is proxied by the historical volatility. library(fOptions) monthprc &lt;- Ad(MSFT)[endpoints(MSFT, \"\"months\"\")] T &lt;- length(monthprc) # 60 months, 5 years vol &lt;- sd(returns$MSFT)*sqrt(12) # annualized volatility optprc &lt;- matrix(NA, 60, 1) for (t in 1:60) { s &lt;- as.numeric(monthprc[t]) optval &lt;- GBSOption(TypeFlag = \"\"c\"\", S = s, X = 50, Time = (T - t) / 12, r = 0.001, b = 0.001, sigma = vol) optprc[t] &lt;- optval@price } monthprc &lt;- cbind(monthprc, optprc) colnames(monthprc) &lt;- c(\"\"MSFT\"\", \"\"MSFTCall50\"\") MSFTCall50rets &lt;- monthlyReturn(monthprc[,2]) colnames(MSFTCall50rets) &lt;- \"\"MSFTCall50rets\"\" returns &lt;- merge(returns, MSFTCall50rets) wghts &lt;- rep(1/9, 9) portret3 &lt;- returns%*%wghts portret3 &lt;- cbind(monthprc, portret3)[,3] colnames(portret3) &lt;- \"\"Equal weights derivative portfolio\"\" png(\"\"performance_deriv.png\"\", width = 800, height = 600) par(mfrow=c(2,2)) chart.CumReturns(portret2, ylim = c(0, 4.5)) chart.CumReturns(portret3, ylim = c(0, 4.5)) chart.Drawdown(portret2, main = \"\"Drawdown\"\", ylim = c(-0.09, 0)) chart.Drawdown(portret3, main = \"\"Drawdown\"\", ylim = c(-0.09, 0)) dev.off() https://imgur.com/SZ1xrYx Even though we have a massively profitable instrument in the derivative. The portfolio analysis does not include it because of the high volatility. However, if we just use equal weighting and essentially take a massive position in the out of the money call (which would not be possible in real life), we get huge drawdowns and volatility, but the returns are almost two fold. But nobody will sell you a five year call. Others can correct any mistakes or misunderstandings in the above. It hopefully gives a starting point. Read more at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_portfolio_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Option_(finance) The imgur album: https://imgur.com/a/LoBEY\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4571314d35b39aaa79c3fad8a33a7265", "text": "Yes, just set aside the amount of money. If you buy a cfd long in a stock for a 1000$, set aside 1000$. If you buy a cfd short, set aside the same amount and include a stoploss at the value at which the money is depleted. In this case however, you can stil lose more, because of opening gaps. By doing this, you replicate the stock return, apart from the charged interest rate.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "28f13758cf91f1e70e60d49db4f80a9b", "text": "\"According to page 56 of the 2015 IRS Publication 550 on Investment Income and Expenses: Wash sales. Your holding period for substantially identical stock or securities you acquire in a wash sale includes the period you held the old stock or securities. It looks like the rule applies to stocks and other securities, including options. It seems like the key is \"\"substantially identical\"\". For your brokerage / trading platform to handle these periods correctly for reporting to IRS, it seems best to trade the same security instead of trying to use something substantially identical.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d3ad5c3e23220983ecf4990d8cae163b", "text": "\"The wash sale rule only applies when the sale in question is at a loss. So the rule does not apply at all to your cases 3, 4, 7, 8, 11, 12, 15, and 16, which all start with a gain. You get a capital gain at the first sale and then a separately computed gain / loss at the second sale, depending on the case, BUT any gain or loss in the IRA is not a taxable event due to the usual tax-advantaged rules for the IRA. The wash sale does not apply to \"\"first\"\" sales in your IRA because there is no taxable gain or loss in that case. That means that you wouldn't be seeking a deduction anyway, and there is nothing to get rolled into the repurchase. This means that the rule does not apply to 1-8. For 5-8, where the second sale is in your brokerage account, you have a \"\"usual\"\" capital gain / loss as if the sale in the IRA didn't happen. (For 1-4, again, the second sale is in the IRA, so that sale is not taxable.) What's left are 9-10 (Brokerage -> IRA) and 13-14 (Brokerage -> Brokerage). The easier two are 13-14. In this case, you cannot take a capital loss deduction for the first sale at a loss. The loss gets added to the basis of the repurchase instead. When you ultimately close the position with the second sale, then you compute your gain or loss based on the modified basis. Note that this means you need to be careful about what you mean by \"\"gain\"\" or \"\"loss\"\" at the second sale, because you need to be careful about when you account for the basis adjustment due to the wash sale. Example 1: All buys and sells are in your brokerage account. You buy initially at $10 and sell at $8, creating a $2 loss. But you buy again within the wash sale window at $9 and sell that at $12. You get no deduction after the first sale because it's wash. You have a $1 capital gain at the second sale because your basis is $11 = $9 + $2 due to the $2 basis adjustment from wash sale. Example 2: Same as Example 1, except that final sale is at $8 instead of at $12. In this case you appear to have taken a $2 loss on the first buy-sell and another $1 loss on the second buy-sell. For taxes however, you cannot claim the loss at the first sale due to the wash. At the second sale, your basis is still $11 (as in Example 1), so your overall capital loss is the $3 dollars that you might expect, computed as the $8 final sale price minus the $11 (wash-adjusted) basis. Now for 9-10 (Brokerage->IRA), things are a little more complicated. In the IRA, you don't worry about the basis of individual stocks that you hold because of the way that tax advantages of those accounts work. You do need to worry about the basis of the IRA account as a whole, however, in some cases. The most common case would be if you have non-deductable contributions to your traditional IRA. When you eventually withdraw, you don't pay tax on any distributions that are attributable to those nondeductible contributions (because you already paid tax on that part). There are other cases where basis of your account matters, but that's a whole question in itself - It's enough for now to understand 1. Basis in your IRA as a whole is a well-defined concept with tax implications, and 2. Basis in individual holdings within your account don't matter. So with the brokerage-IRA wash sale, there are two questions: 1. Can you take the capital loss on the brokerage side? 2. If no because of the wash sale, does this increase the basis of your IRA account (as a whole)? The answer to both is \"\"no,\"\" although the reason is not obvious. The IRS actually put out a Special Bulletin to answer the question specifically because it was unclear in the law. Bottom line for 9-10 is that you apparently are losing your tax deduction completely in that case. In addition, if you were counting on an increase in the basis of your IRA to avoid early distribution penalties, you don't get that either, which will result in yet more tax if you actually take the early distribution. In addition to the Special Bulletin noted above, Publication 550, which talks about wash sale rules for individuals, may also help some.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ec2cecd148f5a36061685e5c592c6bf3", "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.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8e437a2c62972a44657f449075e12786", "text": "\"Debt is nominal, which means when inflation happens, the value of the money owed goes down. This is great for the borrower and bad for the lender. \"\"Investing\"\" can mean a lot of different things. Frequently it is used to describe buying common stock, which is an ownership claim on a company. A company is not a nominally fixed asset, by which I mean if there was a bunch of inflation and nothing else happened (i.e., the inflation was not the cause or result of some other economic change) then the nominal value of the company will go up along with the prices of other things. Based on the above, I'd say you are incorrect to treat debt and investment returns the same way with respect to inflation. When we say equity returns 9%, we mean it returns a real 7% plus 2% inflation or whatever. If the rate of inflation increased to 10% and nothing else happened in the economy, the same equity would be expected to return 17%. In fact, the company's (nominally fixed) debts would be worth less, increasing the real value of the company at the expense of their debt-holders. On the other hand, if we entered a period of high inflation, your debt liability would go way down and you would have benefited greatly from borrowing and investing at the same time. If you are expecting inflation in the abstract sense, then borrowing and investing in common stock is a great idea. Inflation is frequently the result (or cause) of a period of economic trouble, so please be aware that the above makes sense if we treat inflation as the only thing that changed. If inflation came about because OPEC makes oil crazy expensive, millennials just stop working, all of our factories got bombed to hades, or trade wars have shut down international commerce, then the value of stocks would most definitely be affected. In that case it's not really \"\"inflation\"\" that affected the stock returns, though.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e3c2583945301f8f9b14c9f8f0af19fa", "text": "S & P's site has a methodology link that contains the following which may be of use: Market Capitalization. Unadjusted market capitalization of US$ 4.6 billion or more for the S&P 500, US$ 1.2 billion to US$ 5.1 billion for the S&P MidCap 400, and US$ 350 million to US$ 1.6 billion for the S&P SmallCap 600. The market cap of a potential addition to an index is looked at in the context of its short- and medium-term historical trends, as well as those of its industry. These ranges are reviewed from time to time to assure consistency with market conditions. Liquidity. Adequate liquidity and reasonable price – the ratio of annual dollar value traded to float adjusted market capitalization should be 1.00 or greater, and the company should trade a minimum of 250,000 shares in each of the six months leading up to the evaluation date. Domicile. U.S. companies. For index purposes, a U.S. company has the following characteristics: The final determination of domicile eligibility is made by the U.S. Index Committee.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3221ea586106f111e68b463d6aeb1d53", "text": "Efficient Frontier has an article from years ago about the small-cap and value premiums out there that would be worth noting here using the Fama and French data. Eugene Fama and Kenneth French (F/F) have shown that one can explain almost all of the returns of equity portfolios based on only three factors: market exposure, market capitalization (size), and price-to-book (value). Wikipedia link to the factor model which was the result of the F/F research.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4d6f7aaab66362044861af30f6dad102", "text": "I find the reg, at last. https://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?company=Cornerstone+Strategic+Value+Fund&owner=exclude&action=getcompany Yes, its a common stock.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "289270da721e0e136ede814135c932bf", "text": "\"Re. question 2 If I buy 20 shares every year, how do I get proper IRR? ... (I would have multiple purchase dates) Use the money-weighted return calculation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rate_of_return#Internal_rate_of_return where t is the fraction of the time period and Ct is the cash flow at that time period. For the treatment of dividends, if they are reinvested then there should not be an external cash flow for the dividend. They are included in the final value and the return is termed \"\"total return\"\". If the dividends are taken in cash, the return based on the final value is \"\"net return\"\". The money-weighted return for question 2, with reinvested dividends, can be found by solving for r, the rate for the whole 431 day period, in the NPV summation. Now annualising And in Excel\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c6b369eb3203921bb4621f9398674518", "text": "While the issuer of the security such as a stock or bond not the short is responsible for the credit risk, the issuer and the short of a derivative is one. In all cases, it is more than likely that a trader is owed securities by an agent such as a broker or exchange or clearinghouse. Legally, only the Options Clearing Corporation clears openly traded options. With stocks and bonds, brokerages can clear with each other if approved. While a trader is expected to fund margin, the legal responsibility is shared by all in the agent chain. Clearinghouses are liable to exchanges. Exchanges are liable to members. Traders are liable to brokerages. Both ways and so on. Clearinghouses are usually ultimately liable for counterparty risk to the long counterparty, and the short counterparty is ultimately liable to the clearinghouse. Clearinghouses are not responsible for the credit risk of stocks and bonds because the issuers are not short those securities on the exchange, thus no margin is required. Credit risk for stocks and bonds is mitigated away from the clearing process.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "26e287a091fd702c5e5f6a22d8b26381", "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.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "72b452624646db70ff1533aa27000710", "text": "I haven't seen this answer, and I do not know the legality of it, as it could raise red flags as to money laundering, but about the only way to get around the exchange rate spreads and fees is to enter into transactions with a private acquaintance who has Euros and needs Dollars. The problem here is that you are taking on the settlement risk in the sense that you have to trust that they will deposit the euros into your French account when you deposit dollars into their US account. If you work this out with a relative or very close friend, then the risk should be minimal, however a more casual acquaintance may be more apt to walk away from the transaction and disappear with your Euros and your Dollars. Really the only other option would be to be compensated for services rendered in Euros, but that would have tax implications and the fees of an international tax attorney would probably outstrip any savings from Forex spreads and fees not paid.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2ebc7fc2fe6982e3c3c583336b0bc7fb", "text": "There's a possibility to lose money in exchange rate shifts, but just as much chance to gain money (Efficient Market Hypothesis and all that). If you're worried about it, you should buy a stock in Canada and short sell the US version at the same time. Then journal the Canadian stock over to the US stock exchange and use it to settle your short sell. Or you can use derivatives to accomplish the same thing.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "78bb47fd959da4d5ff70d18bba75043b", "text": "If you're already in Australia you can just put your money in a savings account. The type of trade you're describing is called a carry trade, it makes money on the interest rate difference but gives you exposure to risk that the exchange rates change. You can, of course, leverage your money to get an even greater return at a higher risk. What you do is *borrow* USD, convert to AUD, and put in an Australian bank. In FX lingo this would be long AUDUSD.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b36c234151124c34fb9189a4356e13d3", "text": "Either way you'll be converting to US Dollars somewhere along the line. You are seeking something that is very redundant", "title": "" }, { "docid": "12c783ab58e622f4b75a45d00cc7d18a", "text": "There is a way I discovered of finding the current exchange rate before committing to buy, go to send payments, put in your own second email, pay 1gbp as the amount and it will give you the exchange rate and fees in your own currency, in my case euro, before you have to click on send payment", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b0c5d572daf63971196fc6cffc133484", "text": "If your savings are in USD and will be making purchases using USD, then it will no longer go as far as it used to. I assume most Americans currently have their savings accounts in USD, so the value of those accounts will decrease. If you have investments in stocks or foreign currencies, your exposure may be less, but it depends. For example, stocks in companies that hold a lot of USD will also be hit hard, as will be currencies of nations that are still holding a lot of USD if the value of the USD is crashing. If you have a lot of debt measured in USD, while have a lot of assets that have nothing to do with USD, then you might make out like a bandit, since if you assume the value of the USD is falling, then it would become easier to sell off your other assets to pay off the debt.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ea86fd7b4d8b9b47a0d883a41209fb7c", "text": "Yes, if all my savings were in Euro, I would absolutely be converting everything to US dollars, and possibly some gold. You probably don't want to sit around with lots of Euros while watching the shit hit fan. Talk to your bank, possibly they can open a US dollar bank account in your own country for you. Definitely any bank that has an international presence, like HSBC, should be able to do this for you. And if not US dollars, British Pounds would also be another option.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "44714eb2b7b27e40ad6de9cdbbec0533", "text": "\"I'll try to give you some clues on how to find an answer to your question, rather than answering directly the question asked. Why not answer it directly? Well, I can, but it won't help you (or anyone else) much in two months when the rates change again. Generally, you won't find such in brick-and-mortar banks. You can save some time and only look at online banks. Examples: ING Direct (CapitalOne), CapitalOne, Amex FSB, E*Trade, Ally, etc. There are plenty. Go to their web sites, look for promotions, and compare. Sometimes you can find coupons/promotions which will yield more than the actual savings rate. For example, ING frequently have a $50 promotion for opening a new account. You need to understand that rates change frequently, and the highest rate account today may become barely average in a week. There are plenty of sites that offer various levels of comparison information. One of the most comprehensive ones (IMHO) is Bankrate.com. Another place to look is MoneyRates.com. These sites provide various comparisons, and you can also find some promotions advertised there. There are more similar sites. Also, search the Internet and you can find various blog posts with additional promotions – frequently banks give \"\"referral bonuses\"\" to provide incentive for clients to promote the banks. Do some due diligence on the results that appear promising. Not much. You won't find any savings account that would keep the value (purchasing power) of your money over the long term. Keeping money in savings accounts is a sure way to lose value because the inflation rate is much higher than even high-yield savings accounts. But, savings accounts are safe (insured by FDIC/NCUA up to the limit), and very convenient to keep short term savings – such as an emergency fund – that you cannot afford to lose to investments. Sometimes you'll get slightly better rates by locking up your money in a Certificate of Deposit (CD), but not significantly higher when the CD is short-term.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "76def0924a473ee8754ddbcfa1ab06b3", "text": "If possible, I would open a Canadian bank account with a bank such as TD Canada Trust. You can then have your payments wired into that account without incurring costs on receipt. They also allow access to their US ATM network via TD Bank without additional costs. So you could use the American Affiliate to pull the funds out via a US teller while only bearing the cost of currency conversion. If that option can't work then the best route would be to choose a US bank account that doesn't charge for incoming wire transfers and request that the money be wired to your account (you'll still get charged the conversion rate when the wire is in CAD and the account is in USD).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "db7a27bf0afb30d12a004f760578f6a8", "text": "\"is there anything I can do now to protect this currency advantage from future volatility? Generally not much. There are Fx hedges available, however these are for specialist like FI's and Large Corporates, traders. I've considered simply moving my funds to an Australian bank to \"\"lock-in\"\" the current rate, but I worry that this will put me at risk of a substantial loss (due to exchange rates, transfer fees, etc) when I move my funds back into the US in 6 months. If you know for sure you are going to spend 6 months in Australia. It would be wise to money certain amount of money that you need. So this way, there is no need to move back funds from Australia to US. Again whether this will be beneficial or not is speculative and to an extent can't be predicted.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3a3ace553b8d5770299f9fc3f60b1b86", "text": "I've done this for many years, and my method has always been to get a bank draft from my Canadian bank and mail it to my UK bank. The bank draft costs $7.50 flat fee and the mail a couple of dollars more. That's obviously quite a lot to pay on $100, so I do this only every six months or so and make the regular payments out of my UK account. It ends up being only a couple of percent in transaction costs, and the exchange rate is the bank rate.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b376cf28548b9fb41e44db2115279686", "text": "There are peer to peer services these days which work by trying to match someone who wants to convert currency X to currency Y with other people who want to convert Y to X. Obviously this works better with major currencies. They tend to give you the midmarket interbank rate banks use to trade with each less their commission of 1-2%. Banks can charge up to 5% and use different rates for buying and selling. Transfers may take a day or two, although you may be able to do it faster if you pay extra. Transferwise, CurrencyFair and MidPoint are examples of such services though there are many others. Here's a link to a newspaper article with more details.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a6f3673e71cdfeb5998f0abfae96975d", "text": "In general, to someone in a similar circumstance I might suggest that the lowest-risk option is to immediately convert your excess currency into the currency you will be spending. Note that 'risk' here refers only to the variance in possible outcomes. By converting to EUR now (assuming you are moving to an EU country using the EUR), you eliminate the chance that the GBP will weaken. But you also eliminate the chance that the GBP will strengthen. Thus, you have reduced the variance in possible outcomes so that you have a 'known' amount of EUR. To put money in a different currency than what you will be using is a form of investing, and it is one that can be considered high risk. Invest in a UK company while you plan on staying in the UK, and you take on the risk of stock ownership only. But invest in a German company while you plan on staying in the UK, you take on the risk of stock ownership + the risk of currency volatility. If you are prepared for this type of risk and understand it, you may want to take on this type of risk - but you really must understand what you're getting into before you do this. For most people, I think it's fair to say that fx investing is more accurately called gambling [See more comments on the risk of fx trading here: https://money.stackexchange.com/a/76482/44232]. However, this risk reduction only truly applies if you are certain that you will be moving to an EUR country. If you invest in EUR but then move to the US, you have not 'solved' your currency volatility problem, you have simply replaced your GBP risk with EUR risk. If you had your plane ticket in hand and nothing could stop you, then you know what your currency needs will be in 2 years. But if you have any doubt, then exchanging currency now may not be reducing your risk at all. What if you exchange for EUR today, and in a year you decide (for all the various reasons that circumstances in life may change) that you will stay in the UK after all. And during that time, what if the GBP strengthened again? You will have taken on risk unnecessarily. So, if you lack full confidence in your move, you may want to avoid fully trading your GBP today. Perhaps you could put away some amount every month into EUR (if you plan on moving to an EUR country), and leave some/most in GBP. This would not fully eliminate your currency risk if you move, but it would also not fully expose yourself to risk if you end up not moving. Just remember that doing this is not a guarantee that the EUR will strengthen and the GBP will weaken.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0fa6c81a8ef6708e1285d62e7d01d454", "text": "\"The \"\"hidden\"\" fees in any transfer are usually: Foreign exchange transfer services are usually the cheapest option for sending money abroad when a conversion is involved. They tend to offer ways to get the money to or from them cheaply or for free and they typically offer low or no fees plus much better exchange rates than the alternatives. My preferred foreign exchange service is XE Trade. It looks like they support CAD to ZAR transfers so you might check them out. In my experience, they have not set a minimum on the amount I send although it does impact the exchange rate they will offer. The rate is still better than other alternatives available to me though. Note that for large enough transfers, the exchange rate difference will dominate all other costs. For example, if you transfer $10,000 and you pay $100 for the transfer plus $50 in wire fees ($150 in fees) but get a 2% better exchange rate than a \"\"free\"\" service, you would save $50 by choosing the non free service.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b6f497d0d1f37a618b3d6ef7938703e3", "text": "Wire transfers are the best method. Costs can vary from $10 to $100 or more, depending on the banks and countries involved. There's rarely any saving using the same bank, although HSBC may have reduced charges if you have Premier accounts in both countries (for a one-off transaction, it may not be worth the effort to open an account). However, that cost is insignificant compared to your possible losses on the currency exchange. Assuming your money is currently in Hong Kong Dollars (HKD), it will need to be converted to US Dollars (USD). One place where it could be converted is at your Hong Kong bank. You'll get their retail rate. Make sure you are aware of the rate they will use, and any fees, in advance. Expect to pay around 2-3% from the mid-market rate (the rate you see quoted online, which doesn't fluctuate much for HKD-USD as the currencies are linked). Another place where the currency could be converted is at your US bank. You really don't get any control over that if it arrives as HKD and is then automatically converted into your USD. The rate and fees could be quite poor, especially if it is a minor US bank that has to deal with anther bank for foreign currency. For amounts of this size, it's worthwhile using a specialist currency conversion company instead. Currency Fair in Ireland is one. It's a peer-to-peer exchange that is generally the best deal (at least for the currency pairs I use). You wire the money to them, do the exchange on their site at a rate that is much closer to 0.5% from the midrate, then the money is transferred out by wire for a few dollars. Adds a few days to the process, but will possibly save you close to US$1000. Another established option is Currency Online in New Zealand. There are probably also specialist currency exchange companies in Hong Kong. The basic rule is, don't let the banks exchange currencies at rates that suit them, use a third party that offers a better rate and lower fees.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "246c65209e190261eac18889bc5d607a", "text": "I'm in the US and I once transferred shares in a brokerage account from Schwab to Fidelity. I received the shares from my employer as RSUs and the employer used Schwab. After I quit and the shares vested, I wanted to move the shares to Fidelity because that is where all my other accounts are. I called Fidelity and they were more than happy to help, and it was an easy process. I believe Schwab charged about $50 for the transfer. The only tricky part is that you need to transfer the cost basis of the shares. I was on a three-way phone call with Schwab and Fidelity for Schwab to tell Fidelity what the purchase price was.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e71443710085606292dc745c99c90d19", "text": "Many brokers allow you to transfer shares to another broker without selling them. It depends on what kind of account and who the broker is for what forms you might have to fill out and what other hoops you might have to jump through.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "74f26d63f018d5a9aa01c4fbd8a7689c", "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.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "54bb445de033c81fb0cf87b81e81f6cb", "text": "I'll give it a shot, even though you don't seem to be responding to my comment. SIPC insures against fraud or abuse of its members. If you purchased a stock through a SIPC member broker and it was held in trust by a SIPC member, you're covered by its protection. Where you purchased the stock - doesn't matter. There are however things SIPC doesn't cover. That said, SIPC members are SEC-registred brokers, i.e.: brokers operating in the USA. If you're buying on the UK stock exchange - you need to check that you're still operating through a US SIPC member. As I mentioned in the comment - the specific company that you mentioned has different entities for the US operations and the UK operations. Buying through them on LSE is likely to bind you with their UK entity that is not SIPC member. You'll have to check that directly with them.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "58efb1cb07ccaf66487bcc412a50883a", "text": "Yes brokers will act as a counter party in most cases, matching buyers and sellers or taking a position themselves if the hedge matches their needs. Not sure if individuals can buy swaps through a broker. One other point, depending on the credit worthiness of the out of the money party, collateral must be posted. This means if the value of the swap is $1000 to A (-$1000 to B), B must give A some safe asset (cash or treasuries) in case B cannot fulfill his obligation to oay $1.25.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a195bc1db3e3089f9216fa4126fd4007", "text": "\"Yes, you can do that, but you have to have the stocks issued in your name (stocks that you're holding through your broker are issued in \"\"street name\"\" to your broker). If you have a physical stock certificate issued in your name - you just endorse it like you would endorse a check and transfer the ownership. If the stocks don't physically exist - you let the stock registrar know that the ownership has been transferred to someone else. As to the price - the company doesn't care much about the price of private sales, but the taxing agency will. In the US, for example, you report such a transaction as either a gift (IRS form 709), if the transaction was at a price significantly lower than the FMV (or significantly higher, on the other end), or a sale (IRS form 1040, schedule D) if the transaction was at FMV.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "37336f4aa9142fc911bbc1bb0ac04cf6", "text": "\"Assuming these are standardized and regulated contracts, the short answer is yes. In your example, Trader A is short while Trader B is long. If Trader B wants to exit his long position, he merely enters a \"\"sell to close\"\" order with his broker. Trader B never goes short as you state. He was long while he held the contract, then he \"\"sold to close\"\". As to who finds the buyer of Trader B's contract, I believe that would be the exchange or a market maker. Therefore, Trader C ends up the counterparty to Trader A's short position after buying from Trader B. Assuming the contract is held until expiration, Trader A is responsible for delivering contracted product to Trader C for contracted price. In reality this is generally settled up in cash, and Trader A and Trader C never even know each other's identity.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3958b9cb8e53f34f5db3249b09a9fa1e", "text": "No, this isn't possible, especially not when you're trading a highly liquid stock like Apple. When you put in your buy order at $210, any other traders that have open limit sell orders with the correct parameters, e.g. price and volume, will have their order(s) filled. This will occur before you can put in your own sell order and purchase your own shares because the other orders are listed on the order book first. In the US, many tax-sheltered accounts like IRA's have specific rules against self-dealing, which includes buying and selling assets with yourself, so such a transaction would be prohibited by definition. Although I'm not entirely sure if this applies to stocks, the limitation described in the first paragraph still applies regardless. If this were possible, rest assured that high-frequency traders would take advantage of this tactic to manipulate share prices. (I've heard critics say that this does occur, but I haven't researched it myself or seen any data about it)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "747cc718e1016927fc48bf0216b35c05", "text": "As others have said, it depends on the brokerage firm. My broker is Scottrade. With Scottrade the commission is assessed and applied the moment the order is filled. If I buy 100 shares of XYZ at $10 a share then Scottrade will immediately deduct $1007.02 out of my account. They add the commission and fees to the buy transaction. On a sale transaction they subtract the commission and fees from the resulting money. So if I sell 100 shares of XYZ at $11 a share I will get 1,092.98 put into my account, which I can use three business days later.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ad834980c8330d15845645b9551a35af", "text": "Sure they can (most publicly traded banks at least) - and they do it a lot. Many banks have a proprietary trading desk, or Prop desk, where traders are buying and selling shares of publicly traded companies on behalf of the bank, with the bank's own money. This is as opposed to regular trading desks where the banks trade on behalf of their customers.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "164a04ce2cf9f242e658d9350ca128fb", "text": "To piggy back mbhunter's answer, the broker is going to find a way to make the amount of money they want, and either the employee or the company will foot that bill. But additionally, most small businesses want to compete and the market and offer benefits in the US. So they shop around, and maybe the boss doesn't have the best knowledge about effective investing, so they end up taking the offering from the broker who sells it the best. Give you company credit for offering something, but know they are as affected by a good salesperson as anybody else. Being a good sales person doesn't mean you are selling a good product.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7ca2d2b8b76b64ae83c126adcee29378", "text": "Depending on what state you live in in the United States, your Canadian brokerage may be able to sell products within the existing RRSP. I have an RRSP in Canada through TD Waterhouse and they infact just sent me a recent letter explaining that they are permitted to service my Canadian RRSP under the laws of Tennessee (where I live). The note went on to specifically state that they are not subject to the broker-dealer regulations of the US or the securities/regulations laws on the TN securities act. Furthermore, they state that Canadian RRSPs are not regulated under the securities laws of the US and the securities offered and sold to Canadian plans are exempt from registration with the SEC. When I call TD to do trades, I just ask for a Canada/US broker and that's who enters the sale for me. I declare my RRSP annually both to IRS under RRSP treaty and through FBAR reporting.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "767b52bd31b5d6dd53818af5fbc5e7bb", "text": "What JoeTaxpayer means is that you can sell one ETF and buy another that will perform substantially the same during the 30 day wash sale period without being considered substantially the same from a wash sale perspective more easily than you could with an individual stock. For example, you could sell an S&P 500 index ETF and then temporarily buy a DJIA index ETF. As these track different indexes, they are not considered to be substantially the same for wash sale purposes, but for a short term investing period, their performance should still be substantially the same.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fe88f147ee1185df8e18652d0ffef41a", "text": "You'll have to take cash from your Credit Card account and use that to trade. I doubt any brokerage house will take credit cards as it's trading without any collateral (since credit cards are an unsecured credit)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "87050d8b055c683293efe139354a09a5", "text": "I was wondering what relations are between brokerage companies and exchanges? Are brokers representing investors to trade on exchanges? Yes...but a broker may also buy and sell stocks for his own account. This is called broker-delaer firm. For individual investors, what are some cons and pros of trading on the exchanges directly versus indirectly via brokers? Doesn't the former save the investors any costs/expenses paid to the brokers? Yes, but to trade directly on an exchange, you need to register with them. That costs money and only a limited number of people can register I believe. Note that some (or all?) exchanges have their websites where I think trading can be done electronically, such as NASDAQ and BATS? Can almost all stocks be found and traded on almost every exchange? In other words, is it possible that a popular stock can only be found and traded on one exchange, but not found on the other exchange? If needed to be more specific, I am particularly interested in the U.S. case,and for example, Apple's stock. Yes, it is very much possible with smaller companies. Big companies are usually on multiple exchanges. What are your advices for choosing exchange and choosing brokerage companies? What exchanges and brokerage companies do you recommend? For brokerage companies, a beginner can go with discount broker. For sophisticated investors can opt for full service brokers. Usually your bank will have a brokerage firm. For exchanges, it depends...if you are in US, you should send to the US exchanges. IF you wish to send to other exchanges in other countries, you should check with the broker about that.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f17641cdf736100a78e0521fc4b00a67", "text": "\"I think the question, as worded, has some incorrect assumptions built into it, but let me try to hit the key answers that I think might help: Your broker can't really do anything here. Your broker doesn't own the calls you sold, and can't elect to exercise someone else's calls. Your broker can take action to liquidate positions when you are in margin calls, but the scenario you describe wouldn't generate them: If you are long stock, and short calls, the calls are covered, and have no margin requirement. The stock is the only collateral you need, and you can have the position on in a cash (non-margin) account. So, assuming you haven't bought other things on margin that have gone south and are generating calls, your broker has no right to do anything to you. If you're wondering about the \"\"other guy\"\", meaning the person who is long the calls that you are short, they are the one who can impact you, by exercising their right to buy the stock from you. In that scenario, you make $21, your maximum possible return (since you bought the stock at $100, collected $1 premium, and sold it for $120. But they usually won't do that before expiration, and they pretty definitely won't here. The reason they usually won't is that most options trade above their intrinsic value (the amount that they're in the money). In your example, the options aren't in the money at all. The stock is trading at 120, and the option gives the owner the right to buy at 120.* Put another way, exercising the option lets the owner buy the stock for the exact same price anyone with no options can in the market. So, if the call has any value whatsoever, exercising it is irrational; the owner would be better off selling the call and buying the stock in the market.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2558005d3942eb1f47665d8d63608efe", "text": "Yes you can get them from your broker. Two main advantages I can see are:", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "f8fc26829c721659c31dd9dcad24000b", "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.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "3080c79cd27b9f11931ebb9fee6ad440", "text": "And just as easily, someone could find a reason for such a derivative to exist. Let's say I'm a vendor of memorabilia for a given sports team, but unlike most vendors I'm only a vendor for a particular team. Given that there is a large lead time between orders placed and memorabilia received (perhaps on the order of a month between order and receipt), it is inherently risky to order large orders towards the end of a season. However, if they're going to be in the playoffs, there's a huge opportunity to sell, but if they don't, you'd be left with tons of surplus inventory. So, wouldn't it be handy for there to be a way to hedge that risk? We've actually seen times when such things aren't unreasonable. Large risks are [hedged away](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303877604577380593015786140.html), even in sports.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b30ca28a9511d1c987202b799849f608", "text": "\"The fact that your shares are of a Canadian-listed corporation (as indicated in your comment reply) and that you are located in the United States (as indicated in your bio) is highly relevant to answering the question. The restriction for needing to be a \"\"qualified institutional buyer\"\" (QIB) arises from the parent company not having registered the spin-off company rights [options] or shares (yet?) for sale in the United States. Shares sold in the U.S. must either be registered with the SEC or qualify for some exemption. See SEC Fast Answers - Securities Act Rule 144. Quoting: Selling restricted or control securities in the marketplace can be a complicated process. This is because the sales are so close to the interests of the issuing company that the law might require them to be registered. Under Section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933, all offers and sales of securities must be registered with the SEC or qualify for some exemption from the registration requirements. [...] There are regulations to follow and costs involved in such registration. Perhaps the rights [options] themselves won't ever be registered (as they have a very limited lifetime), while the listed shares might be? You could contact investor relations at the parent company for more detail. (If I guessed the company correctly, there's detail in this press release. Search the text for \"\"United States\"\".)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4b7262dc2ce7e8c5af516b49b75cc613", "text": "\"There are a few people that do this for a living. They are called \"\"market makers\"\" or \"\"specialists\"\" in a particular stock. First of all, this requires a lot of capital. You can get burned on a few trades, a process known as \"\"gambler's ruin,\"\" but if you have enough capital to weather the storm, you can make money. Second, you have to be \"\"licensed\"\" by the stock market authorities, because you need to have stock market trading experience and other credentials. Third, you are not allowed to buy and sell at will. In order to do your job, you have to \"\"balance the boat,\"\" that is buy, when others are selling, and sell, when others are buying, in order to keep the market moving in two directions. It's a tough job that requires a lot of experience, plus a license, but a few people can make a living doing this.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "27c36d33072f1f3c03abebb2b95e40c9", "text": "\"Yes. \"\"There is, ...no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services.\"\" Taken from the US Department of the Treasury.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ce3fbd446013c0224cc90bf725238b8d", "text": "Probably. It sounds like you're looking for a 1031-exchange for stocks and bonds. From the wikipedia page for 1031-exchanges: To qualify for Section 1031 of the Internal Revenue Code, the properties exchanged must be held for productive use in a trade or business or for investment. Stocks, bonds, and other properties are listed as expressly excluded by Section 1031 of the Internal Revenue Code, though securitized properties are not excluded. 1031-exchanges usually are applicable in real estate.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f5aa4bf9c5d5c637dc8bbb26315ae07a", "text": "\"It's not consistent across the states. Most states have some implementation of these functions but fully regulated states don't have all of them and many are \"\"functions\"\" but are owned by the same entity. Look at the southeast, the rockies, the PNW, AZ there are zero or few opportunities for merchant anything.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "06347da072b82d84f07b4c9d441f3931", "text": "Assuming US,but the principles apply in many (not all) places: If the bills are legitimate and issued by the federal government, they're legal tender and you can spend or deposit them. Old bills, especially silver certificates, may be worth more than their face value to collectors (or may not). Bills issued by banks, by the confederate states, or something like that have only collector's value (which will vary depending on exactly what they are and their condition). The value of money from another country will depend on the issuing country and exchange rates, of course. There's nothing wrong with windfall cash. The IRS may ask some nosy questions about it to make sure you aren't trying to hide something, but if you aren't deliberately trying to cheat them or hide something illegal that's generally harmless at worst.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5adcb66b7facb23889a1bb9856a5e2d9", "text": "\"It sounds like maybe you want an \"\"investment club\"\". As defined by the SEC: An investment club is a group of people who pool their money to make investments. Usually, investment clubs are organized as partnerships and, after the members study different investments, the group decides to buy or sell based on a majority vote of the members. Club meetings may be educational and each member may actively participate in investment decisions. These \"\"typically\"\" do not need to register: Investment clubs usually do not have to register, or register the offer and sale of their own membership interests, with the SEC. But since each investment club is unique, each club should decide if it needs to register and comply with securities laws. There's more information from the SEC here: http://www.sec.gov/investor/pubs/invclub.htm The taxes depend on how you organized the club, i.e. if you organize as a partnership, I believe that you will be taxed as a partnership. (Not 100% sure.) Some online brokerages have special accounts specifically for investment clubs. Check around.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b1fb0823ce32c596a1f3590d7c2e7c0c", "text": "For Canada No distinction is made in the regulation between “naked” or “covered” short sales. However, the practice of “naked” short selling, while not specifically enumerated or proscribed as such, may violate other provisions of securities legislation or self-regulatory organization rules where the transaction fails to settle. Specifically, section 126.1 of the Securities Act prohibits activities that result or contribute “to a misleading appearance of trading activity in, or an artificial price for, a security or derivative of a security” or that perpetrate a fraud on any person or company. Part 3 of National Instrument 23-101 Trading Rules contains similar prohibitions against manipulation and fraud, although a person or company that complies with similar requirements established by a recognized exchange, quotation and trade reporting system or regulation services provider is exempt from their application. Under section 127(1) of the Securities Act, the OSC also has a “public interest jurisdiction” to make a wide range of orders that, in its opinion, are in the public interest in light of the purposes of the Securities Act (notwithstanding that the subject activity is not specifically proscribed by legislation). The TSX Rule Book also imposes certain obligations on its “participating organizations” in connection with trades that fail to settle (see, for example, Rule 5-301 Buy-Ins). In other words, shares must be located by the broker before they can be sold short. A share may not be locatable because there are none available in the broker's inventory, that it cannot lend more than what it has on the books for trade. A share may not be available because the interest rate that brokers are charging to borrow the share is considered too high by that broker, usually if it doesn't pass on borrowing costs to the customer. There could be other reasons as well. If one broker doesn't have inventory, another might. I recommend checking in on IB's list. If they can't get it, my guess would be that no one can since IB passes on the cost to finance short sales.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "434de37fd30d2297aa6e78c13433dd39", "text": "The price for securities is negotiable. You totally have a right to make a lower offer when buying or ask for a higher price when selling. Securities don't trade at a fixed price, the price goes up and down throughout the day based on the price offers made by buyers and sellers and where they find agreement. If a stock last traded for $10, someone can put out an offer to buy the stock at $9.50, if they find someone who wants to sell and will accept that price, then a deal is made. unless something is falling rapidly in price however, an offer that far below the last price is not terribly likely to be accepted. Now if you want to be assured of making a sale or purchase, you generally trade 'at the market' and for small time players that is very much encouraged as it makes it easier for everyone.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "584bd446fe497404fff91a9215141feb", "text": "\"Apartment complexes have had a long history of not accepting cash for payment of rent. This eliminates the problem of robbery and strongly reduces the risks of embezzlement. THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE Article 1, Section 10 of the US Constitution states: No State shall ... make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts Previous editions of banknotes stated that the notes were redeemable in gold or in lawful money. The Mint Act of 1792 set gold and silver as legal currency (and that one did not have to accept \"\"base metal coins\"\" for more than $10 which is why coin rolls only go up to $10). The Coinage Act of 1873 dropped silver and made gold the legal standard for currency. In 1933, the \"\"redeemable in gold\"\" was changed by federal statute and the legend you mention was added. Prior to 1933, someone could demand that you pay them in gold and not with a bank note. Legislation in 1933 ended that. This clause in the Constitution leads some political groups to wish to return to a gold standard. I recommend reading the book Greenback as it describes how our currency got the way it did and why that clause appears on currency.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "afddbbed11db47d06d77751f3d76f112", "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.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "22b4698b41a63d0eb71f71fefe874e94", "text": "Gold is not legal tender. I can't walk into Walmart and buy groceries with 1/20 ounce of gold. I can't buy a TV or car with gold. And you can't *buy* money--that's not how it works. I can sell a barrel of oil or a whatever of copper in any currency, but that doesn't make either of them currencies in and of themselves.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9a3397cd7662ba48d3e675a92d3cc91e", "text": "\"First of all, it is absolutely **not** constitutional for any branch of the US government to outsource its primary functions to a private corporation. But, more to your point, the constitution provides that \"\"no state shall make any thing but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts.\"\" They will argue that Federal Reserve notes are unbacked, that taxes are voluntary, that Washington D.C. is not a state, that the FED is not private, or even (sometimes) that the gold standard is still in force. But each of those is contradicted by their actions.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2d2fd0c45caf45fe21db06971a5f4f8b", "text": "At one point it was illegal to melt silver coins in the US, but it is legal now. I don't know that will happen with copper coins, but that's what happened with silver coins. Accumulating nickels and leaving them as-is (in their spendable state) is legal. It's also a way to take physical ownership of copper. I expect to see more sales of nickels based on weight. People are already selling high-copper-content cents on eBay, by weight. There are machines in production that sort the zinc ones from the copper ones. Gresham's Law has small business backing. ;) Copper cents are already worth twice their face value in the copper content. Nickels will get up there, too. They are awfully heavy and bulky relative to their value, though. Precious metals give you better bang for your ounce.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "8dad87928431875301308fad68c7ae0c", "text": "\"Indexes are down during the summer time, and I don't think it has something to do with specific stocks. If you look at the index history you'll see that there's a price drop during the summer time. Google \"\"Sell in May and go away\"\". The BP was cheap at the time for a very particular reason. As another example of a similar speculation you can look at Citibank, which was less than $1 at its lowest, and within less than a year went to over $4 ( more than 400%). But, when it was less than $1 - it was very likely for C to go bankrupt, and it required a certain amount of willingness to loose to invest in it. Looking back, as with BP, it paid off well. But - that is looking back. So to address your question - there's no place where people tell you what will go up, because people who know (or think they know) will invest themselves, or buy lottery tickets. There's research, analysts, and \"\"frinds' suggestions\"\" which sometimes pay off (as in your example with BP), and sometimes don't. How much of it is noise - I personally don't think I can tell, until I can look back and say \"\"Damn, that dude was right about shorts on Google, it did go down 90% in 2012!\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9cbb60a19abbe812b21f4293f43bc94b", "text": "Something you might want to consider, instead of going out bargain hunting in hopes of picking something up on the cheap is to start doing you research now for a stock you would like to have in your portfolio and watch it for news that might cause it to go down before picking it up when it is down for a bit. As you pointed out with the BP stock, prior to the incident it was a solid stock that was being held in a number of funds. By identifying solid stocks now you can also make the decision on the basis of the news to if the fundamentals under the stock are severely impacted or if it just a temporary dip in prices. Also, you might want to index funds such as VTI that are tied to the overall market and also pay dividends. When the market tends down for awhile you can buy some shares that you can either hold for dollar-cost averaging or sell off again once the market picks up.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "41752b5a4d21a288037d034cf581f6a2", "text": "Keep in mind, that bargain hunting will fail you from time to time. I know a lot of guys who bought Nortel at $10, planning to hold it until the inevitable recovery.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5f1447d13dcd7559b4fcf59720c4c964", "text": "Do your own research There are hundreds of places where people will give you all sorts of recommendations. There is as much noise in the recommendations as there is in the stock market itself. Become your own filter. You need to work on your own instinct. Pick a couple of sectors and a few stocks in each and study them. It is useful to know where the main indexes are going, but - unless you are trading the indexes - it is the individual sectors that you should focus on more.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "9035e3042845744753020ebe12989ddf", "text": "I can't provide a list, but when I took out my Stocks and Shares, I extensively researched for a good, cheap, flexible option and I went with FoolShareDealing. I've found them to be good, and their online trading system works well. I hope that's still the case.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a862de5d9274e3bc9659e843f7763700", "text": "Thanks for sharing, interesting piece. I find the best opportunities to buy are watching the downtrends on oversold stocks. For example, recently with Amazon's buyout of Whole Foods, groceries took a big hit. Kroger took the biggest hit of all, falling nearly 30% from its 50 day moving average of $30/share. So I bought some at 21.50 and will just sit on it for a couple months. I find put buying on the upward swings to still be risky in this market, but on the downtrend it easy to spot oversold equities that will trend back up over time because of solid fundamentals.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5db2500544c713428b4b849702c8e351", "text": "In order to see whether you can buy or sell some given quantity of a stock at the current bid price, you need a counterparty (a buyer) who is willing to buy the number of stocks you are wishing to offload. To see whether such a counterparty exists, you can look at the stock's order book, or level two feed. The order book shows all the people who have placed buy or sell orders, the price they are willing to pay, and the quantity they demand at that price. Here is the order book from earlier this morning for the British pharmaceutical company, GlaxoSmithKline PLC. Let's start by looking at the left-hand blue part of the book, beneath the yellow strip. This is called the Buy side. The book is sorted with the highest price at the top, because this is the best price that a seller can presently obtain. If several buyers bid at the same price, then the oldest entry on the book takes precedence. You can see we have five buyers each willing to pay 1543.0 p (that's 1543 British pence, or £15.43) per share. Therefore the current bid price for this instrument is 1543.0. The first buyer wants 175 shares, the next, 300, and so on. The total volume that is demanded at 1543.0p is 2435 shares. This information is summarized on the yellow strip: 5 buyers, total volume of 2435, at 1543.0. These are all buyers who want to buy right now and the exchange will make the trade happen immediately if you put in a sell order for 1543.0 p or less. If you want to sell 2435 shares or fewer, you are good to go. The important thing to note is that once you sell these bidders a total of 2435 shares, then their orders are fulfilled and they will be removed from the order book. At this point, the next bidder is promoted up the book; but his price is 1542.5, 0.5 p lower than before. Absent any further changes to the order book, the bid price will decrease to 1542.5 p. This makes sense because you are selling a lot of shares so you'd expect the market price to be depressed. This information will be disseminated to the level one feed and the level one graph of the stock price will be updated. Thus if you have more than 2435 shares to sell, you cannot expect to execute your order at the bid price in one go. Of course, the more shares you are trying to get rid of, the further down the buy side you will have to go. In reality for a highly liquid stock as this, the order book receives many amendments per second and it is unlikely that your trade would make much difference. On the right hand side of the display you can see the recent trades: these are the times the trades were done (or notified to the exchange), the price of the trade, the volume and the trade type (AT means automatic trade). GlaxoSmithKline is a highly liquid stock with many willing buyers and sellers. But some stocks are less liquid. In order to enable traders to find a counterparty at short notice, exchanges often require less liquid stocks to have market makers. A market maker places buy and sell orders simultaneously, with a spread between the two prices so that they can profit from each transaction. For instance Diurnal Group PLC has had no trades today and no quotes. It has a more complicated order book, enabling both ordinary buyers and sellers to list if they wish, but market makers are separated out at the top. Here you can see that three market makers are providing liquidity on this stock, Peel Hunt (PEEL), Numis (NUMS) and Winterflood (WINS). They have a very unpalatable spread of over 5% between their bid and offer prices. Further in each case the sum total that they are willing to trade is 3000 shares. If you have more than three thousand Dirunal Group shares to sell, you would have to wait for the market makers to come back with a new quote after you'd sold the first 3000.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c6006d5d44a26b2d1418cbde824c60d6", "text": "Ok, see that was my thinking too. Historically, stocks and land values have always gone up, even after the depression. So, it seems to me, that if you have a buy and hold strategy with a horizon of 10-20 years, then you should be fine. Is my thinking realistic along those lines?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "842bc98d07f74ea35c1ebcc9d9a68d90", "text": "\"Assuming you are referring to macro corrections and crashes (as opposed to technical crashes like the \"\"flash crash\"\") -- It is certainly possible to sell stocks during a market drop -- by definition, the market is dropping not only because there are a larger number of sellers, but more importantly because there are a large number of transactions that are driving prices down. In fact, volumes are strongly correlated with volatility, so volumes are actually higher when the market is going down dramatically -- you can verify this on Yahoo or Google Finance (pick a liquid stock like SPY and look at 2008 vs recent years). That doesn't say anything about the kind of selling that occurs though. With respect to your question \"\"Whats the best strategy for selling stocks during a drop?\"\", it really depends on your objective. You can generally always sell at some price. That price will be worse during market crashes. Beyond the obvious fact that prices are declining, spreads in the market will be wider due to heightened volatility. Many people are forced to sell during crashes due to external and / or psychological pressures -- and sometimes selling is the right thing to do -- but the best strategy for long-term investors is often to just hold on.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2fc529d324852c5377d4c53088ed9566", "text": "I would suggest that oil stocks are going down due to reduced earnings predictions. The market may go too far in selling off oil and oil-related stocks. You may be able to pick up a bargain, but beware that prices may continue to fall in the short to medium term.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "37da0eeb598dc54990f72a3f4987723c", "text": "You can buy out of the money put options that could minimize your losses (or even make you money) in the event of a huge crash. Put options are good in that you dont have to worry about not getting filled, or not knowing what price you might get filled with a stop-loss order, however, put options cost money and their value decays over time. It's just like buying insurance, you always have to pay up for it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9694aacc24a942a9abe95f46e8a967c9", "text": "Don't throw good money after bad. If you bought on the peak of an event like news/earnings hoping for more and ignored its value than you might be doomed. Determine the stocks value and see it as a buying opportunity if it's still sweet. If not buy more carefully. Those kinds of moves in that range you must have been involved in micro-small caps like biotechs. Thats where money goes to talk to itself and chew on its arm. You win big by finding an alien chip under your skin to reverse engineer or far more likely just wind up eating yourself. If your not holding inside info or at the higher levels of a pyramid for a pump/dump you really shouldn't let your greed take you there. I can expect and stomach w/o worry being wrong at my buy time as much as 10-15% and live with it for a year or more because I see I'm buying a quarter for a dime and will continue to buy into it without staking everything though). I bought in heavy when netflix (prior to split) was $50 or so hoping for a quick bounce and it sunk to like 20 something. No I didn't buy more, I felt like I just got my own .com bubble experience. I stopped looking at it,helpless to do anything other than eat a huge loss I adopted an out of sight out of mind thinking. I no longer wished to be in it, I felt like an ass for getting myself into it, it did NOT look good at the time and I risked a huge amount of capital for what I felt wrongly was a nice quick trade to make some thousands off. Checked it one day, must have wanted to hurt myself, and it was near $300 a share. My extreme loss had turned into something wonderful. A big tax bomb. Netflix eventually split and rose even more meteorically. I held on and only exited a while back and my worst mistake became my best success. Yet still, you trade like that, on unsound things, don't rely on getting the winning ticket because they are few and all others are losers. If your in for a penny you need to be in for the pound and help yourself immensely by sticking to sound stocks and currencies. You trade on news you may find yourself in Zimbabwe dollars with Enron stock. Bad footing, no matter the news or excitement is bad footing.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6821015b22bf903e1176699de9ec2480", "text": "Buy puts on stock holdings buy puts on indexes look at volatility etfs and silver/gold etf s. Calling a market top is hard people hVe tried for 8 years now. 90 of protection via options expires worthless. Who knows if we have another crash. I don't call tops or bottoms if we start falling then I'll look at protection and play the downside", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a38877baeb397e6c9892d20f6f17f828", "text": "\"First, I would like to use a better chart. In my opinion, a close of day line chart obscures a lot of important information. Here is a daily OHLC log chart: The initial drop from the 1099.23 close on Oct 3 was to 839.8 intraday, to close at 899.22 on Oct 10. After this the market was still very volatile and reached a low of 747.78 on Nov 20, closing only slightly higher than this. It traded as high as 934.70 on Jan 6, 2009, but the whole period of Nov 24 - Feb 13 was somewhat of a trading range of roughly 800-900. Despite this, the news reports of the time were frequently saying things like \"\"this isn't going to be a V shaped recovery, it is going to be U shaped.\"\" The roughly one week dip you see Feb 27 - Mar 9 taking it to an intraday low of 666.79 (only about 11% below the previous low) on first glance appears to be just a continuation of the previous trend. However... The Mar 10 uptrend started with various news articles (such as this one) which I recall at the time suggested things like reinstating the parts of the Glass–Steagall Act of 1933 which had been repealed by the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act. Although these attempts appear to have been unsuccessful, the widespread telegraphing of such attempts in the media seemed to have reversed a common notion which I saw widespread on forums and other places that, \"\"we are going to be in this mess forever, the market has nowhere to go but down, and therefore shorting the market is a good idea now.\"\" I don't find the article itself, but one prominent theme was the \"\"up-tick\"\" rule on short selling: source From this viewpoint, then, that the last dip was driven not so much by a recognition that the economy was really in the toilet (as this really was discounted in the first drop and at least by late November had already been figured into the price). Instead, it was sort of the opposite of a market top, where now you started seeing individual investors jump on the band-wagon and decide that now was the time for a foray into selling (short). The fact that the up-tick rule was likely to be re-instated had a noticeable effect on halting the final slide.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b3867acb1c21ff31986b19e85a766421", "text": "While JB King says some useful things, I think there is another fundamental reason why stock markets go down after disasters, either natural or man-made. There is a real impact on the markets - in the case of something like 9/11 due to closed airport, higher security costs, closer inspections on trade goods, tighter restrictions on visas, real payments for the rebuilding of destroyed buildings and insurance payouts for killed people, and eventually the cost of a war. But almost as important is the uncertainty and risk. Nobody knew what was going to happen in the days and weeks after an attack like that. Is there going to be another one a week later, or every week for the next year? Will air travel become essentially impractical? Will international trade be severely restricted? All those would have a huge, massive effect on the economy. You may argue that those things are very unlikely, even after something like 9/11. But even a small increase in the likelihood of a catastrophic economic crash is enough to start people selling. There is another thing that drives the market down. Even if most people are sure that there won't be a catastrophic economic crash, they know that other people think there might be and so will sell. That will drive the market down. If they know the market is going down, then sensible traders will start to sell, even if they think there is zero risk of a crash. This makes the effect worse. Eventually prices will drop so far that the people who don't think there is a crash will start to buy, so they can make a profit on the recovery. But that usually doesn't happen until there has been a substantial drop.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bd8d9668f1528cb0c422ceaf8b49f866", "text": "I've read a nice rule of thumb somewhere that you should consider: You should invest (100-YOURAGE)% of your money in stock The rest should be something less volatile and more liquid, so you have some money when the stock market goes down and you need some money nevertheless. So you would start with buying about 75% stock and balance your stock percentage over time by buing more secure assets to keep the stock percentage at the desired level. At some time you might need to sell stock to rebalance and invest in more secure assets.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f40ce647ec1934ec570d35784baa2775", "text": "James Roth provides a partial solution good for stock picking but let's speed up process a bit, already calculated historical standard deviations: Ibbotson, very good collection of research papers here, examples below Books", "title": "" }, { "docid": "37e3a00a374b530dca094482cc463507", "text": "Waiting for the next economic downturn probably isn't the best plan at this point. While it could happen tomorrow, you may end up waiting a long time. If you would prefer not to think much about your investment and just let them grow then mutual funds are a really good option. Make sure you research them before you buy into any and make sure to diversify, as in buy into a lot of different mutual funds that cover different parts of the market. If you want to be more active in investing then start researching the market and stick to industries you have very good understanding of. It's tough to invest in a market you know nothing about. I'd suggest putting at least some of that into a retirement savings account for long term growth. Make sure you look at both your short term and long term goals. Letting an investment mature from age 20 through to retirement will net you plenty of compound interest but don't forget about your short term goals like possible cars, houses and families. Do as much research as you can and you will be fine!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "58a3fac2218463767533c96a7963a83c", "text": "\"http://www.darkreading.com/attacks-breaches/the-7-most-significant-government-data-breaches/d/d-id/1327468 \"\"What makes the government breaches more significant though is the kind of information involved. In a majority of cases, government breaches involved personally identifying data, such as names, Social Security numbers, and birthdates, the loss of which have substantially greater consequences for victims than breaches involving loss of credit card data or email account information. In a few cases, the breaches involved loss of top secret and highly confidential data of national security value.\"\"\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "f4e52de00689799d0a38c9951bef61de", "text": "You can find out the general types of investments by reading the public corporation 10-Q report that is filed with the SEC it can be accessed via the EDGAR system. It will not tell you what securities they have, but it does identify the short term and long term investments categories and their value.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ee7997e614fb5734ca64aa3847de7488", "text": "Short term investments, treasuries, current accounts.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "eb22f51c5e620c368ae9efe4b3d807f8", "text": "They are using several banks, hedge funds or other financial institutions, in order to diversify the risk inherent to the fact that the firm holding (a fraction of) their cash, can be insolvent which would makes them incur a really big loss. Also, the most available form of cash is very often reinvested everyday in overnight*products and any other highly liquid products, so that it can be available quickly if needed. Since they are aware that they are not likely to need all of their cash in one day, they also use longer terms or less liquid investments (bonds, stocks, etc..).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "df5f23b76dff4d3d4a7efb790e61a420", "text": "For tax optimization, cash is stored mostly overseas, according to the New York Times. For Apple, everytime a song or an app is bought in Europe, Africa or Middle East, money flows to iTunes Sàrl, in Luxemburg. Royalties on patents flow internally from Apple in California to Apple in Ireland. Then profits flow to the Carribean. The problem is that cash cannot be brought back to the USA without huge taxes.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "d4231c8ba1dee0efe017174185cea301", "text": "Generally you don't exclude cash that is needed to keep working capital going. A firm's need to cash will vary based upon it's AR and AP policies. Some companies that have beat up their vendors and extract harsh payment terms, like Dell and Walmart, often have negative working capital and can therefore be thought of as funding growth on their suppliers cash. Most companies require some amount of cash in their working capital to connect the dots from when they pay their suppliers and when their customers pay them. You need to leave that cash in your working capital calculation and on your DCF.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d25aad348b0c799e74c707363b625f45", "text": "They made their money one of two ways. Either they got a commission from the original owner (similar to how a buyer's agent in a real estate transaction gets a commission from the original owner of the house and/or a share of the seller's agent's commission), or they actually participated in the transaction directly (buying from the original owner, selling to you at a higher price). Storing it in the vault free of charge of course has an expectation that a certain percentage of those who do so will use that broker to complete the eventual sale.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b23d1bc1dc22e8aef985a8bf65abb967", "text": "\"This is second hand information as I am not a millionaire, but I work with such people everyday and have an understanding of how they handle cash: The wealthy people don't. Simple. Definitely not if they don't have to. Cash is a tool to them that they use only if they get benefit of it being a cash transaction (one of my friends is a re-seller and he gets a 10% discount from suppliers for settling lines using cash). Everything else they place on a line of credit. For people who \"\"dislike\"\" credit cards and pay using ATM or debit cards might actually have a very poor understanding of leverage. I assure you, the wealthy people have a very good understanding of it! Frankly, wealthy people pay less for everything, but they deserve it because of the extreme amount of leverage they have built for themselves. Their APRs are low, their credit limits are insanely high, they have longer billing periods and they get spoiled by credit card vendors all the time. For example, when you buy your groceries at Walmart, you pay at least a 4% markup because that's the standardized cost of processing credit cards. Even if you paid in cash! A wealthy person uses his credit card to pay for the same but earns the same percentage amount in cash back, points and what not. I am sure littleadv placed the car purchase on his credit card for similar reasons! The even more wealthy have their groceries shipped to their houses and if they pay cash I won't be surprised if they actually end up paying much less for fresh (organic) vegetables than what equivalent produce at Walmart would get them! I apologize for not being able to provide citations for these points I make as they are personal observations.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d17bceff3a511e9db65018b11d08680f", "text": "If you want to store that much money, find a good hiding place. (E-mail me the location. I'll keep it a secret. I promise!) But I think instead you want to invest that much money, in a cash-like liquid form. You can do $250,000 in a bank (beyond 2012) and then spread the rest over some big-name brokerages with money market accounts. But, as JohnFx pointed out, with that much cash you can do amazing things with it. Think bigger.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7252370787b0eb06f8699bd008627e83", "text": "\"Most of your money doesn't exist as physical cash, but simply as numbers in a ledger. At any given time, banks expect their clients to withdraw a certain percentage of their balances... For instance, checking accounts are frequently drawn down to zero, savings accounts might be emptied once our twice a year, CDs are almost never withdrawn, etc. To cover those withdrawals, banks keep a certain amount of physical cash on hand, and an additional amount remains on the ledgers. The rest gets loaned out to their customers for use in buying homes, cars, credit cards,etc. Anything they can't loan out directly gets deposited with the federal reserve or loaned directly to other institutions who need it. However, those last two options tend to be short term (ie overnight) loans. With debit cards functioning 24/7, you could get cash at an atm or make a purchase anytime of the day our night. The weekend has nothing to do with it. Which is a long way of saying \"\"No, they do it all the time, not just on weekends\"\" ;)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "033cc75052b075d066d1a2b1420dfe42", "text": "\"This will happen automatically when you open an interest-bearing account with a bank. You didn't think that banks just kept all that cash in a vault somewhere, did you? That's not the way modern banking works. Today (and for a long, long time) banks will keep only a small fraction of their deposits on hand (called the \"\"reserve\"\") to fund daily withdrawals and other operations. The rest they routinely lend out to other customers, which is how they pay for their operations (someone has to pay all those tellers, branch managers, loan officers) and pay interest on your deposits, as well as a profit for their owners (it's not a charity service). The fees charged for loan origination, as well as the difference between the loan interest rate and the deposit rate, make up the profit. Banks rarely hold their own loans. Instead, they will sell the loans in portfolios to investors, sometimes retaining servicing rights (they continue to collect the payments and pass them on) and sometimes not (the payments are now due to someone else). This allows them to make more loans. Banks may sometimes not have enough capital on hand. In this case, they can make inter-bank loans to meet their short-term needs. In some cases, they'll take those loans from a government central bank. In the US, this is \"\"The Fed\"\", or the Federal Reserve Bank. In the US, back around the late 1920's, and again in the 1980's some banks experienced a \"\"run\"\", or a situation where people lost confidence in the bank and wanted to withdraw their money. This caused the bank to have insufficient funds to support the withdrawals, so not everyone got their money. People panicked, and others wanted to take their money out, which caused the situation to snowball. This is how many banks failed. (In the '80s, it was savings-and-loans that failed - still a kind of \"\"bank\"\".) Today, we have the FDIC (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation) to protect depositors. In the crashes in the early 2000's, many banks closed up one night and opened the next in a conservatorship, and then were literally doing business as a new bank without depositors (necessarily) even knowing. This protected the consumers. The bank (as a company) and its owners were not protected.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "12b40e074513538ce68402423a6b9317", "text": "I just listened to a podcast on this topic this week, and Satanicpuppy is pretty much correct. If you are interested, here is a link to the podcast on Legal Lad: Can Businesses Refuse to Accept Cash?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ec3fbd0ec37ba33932816f8fa8f9a042", "text": "Trader Joe's operates in 100% cash, no debt. No unions, no shareholders to answer to. The owners don't take any of the money. All the money is circulated back into the company. They lease small buildings and pay the rent in advance.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "21ab43bfb0013f6bec2b5d2c53dbfb29", "text": "The US does have a gold reserve. The main reserves are held at Fort Knox but there is even more gold, mostly owned by other countries, stored in the basement of the New York Federal Reserve Bank (Think Die Hard 3). The United States Bullion Depository, often known as Fort Knox, is a fortified vault building located adjacent to Fort Knox, Kentucky, used to store a large portion of United States official gold reserves and occasionally other precious items belonging or entrusted to the federal government. The United States Bullion Depository holds 4,578 metric tons (5046 tons) of gold bullion (147.2 million oz. troy). This is roughly 2.5% of all the gold ever refined throughout human history. Even so, the depository is second in the United States to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York's underground vault in Manhattan, which holds 7,000 metric tons (7716 tons) of gold bullion (225.1 million oz. troy), some of it in trust for foreign nations, central banks and official international organizations. Source: Wikipedia", "title": "" }, { "docid": "524cddb28590d076ce9cdaf36faf147c", "text": "So ... how are you going to have a bank run if you got rid of cash? I suspect big investors will attempt (have already attempted?) to pull their cash, but regular people? Not like running to the ATM will do much good and I don't think they have offshore accounts. Excuse my naïveté, but that's the first thing that came to my mind...", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e8034a4cc4698ab17120162a58ee34d8", "text": "The Bank Secrecy Act of 1970 requires that banks assist the U.S. Gov't in identifying and preventing money laundering. This means they're required to keep records of cash transactions of Negotiable Instruments, and report any such transactions with a daily aggregate limit of a value greater than (or equal to?) $10,000. Because of this, the business which is issuing the money order is also required to record this transaction to report it to the bank, who then holds the records in case FinCEN wants to review the transactions. EDITED: Added clarification on the $10,000 rule", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e6c0022c9123f09d4d1f69dcf4beedd4", "text": "\"In May 2011, a report to the board by Promontory Financial Group, a Washington consultant hired as part of the CFTC Dooley settlement, concluded that the firm had vastly improved\"\" its systems and risk controls, and praised management for setting \"\"a tone at the top\"\" supporting \"\"best practices.\"\" I actually did some technology work for Promontory Financial Group for a short period. What a bunch of tools. They had a nice office in a newer office building in the business district of Washington DC, not far from the Treasury. Their \"\"server room\"\" was actually a closet. The number of servers they had produced a lot of heat. It had minimal ventiliation. Their solution? Bring in a portable A/C unit. Great, but due to the humidity and the amount of heat/energy transfer, it produced a lot of condensation runoff. There was no drain. The solution? Think of the largest Rubbermaid outdoor garbage can that you can buy, and put it under the unit to collect the condensation output. It was probably 50 gallons. It filled up in about three or four days, an indication of the output. Part of the nightly cleaning crew's responsibility was to bail (literally) the water out of the can, and put it in a mop bucket, and wheel it down to the cleaning closet that did have a sink and empty it. The can had wheels, but who would want to risk rolling 400 pounds of water on tinkery casters down a lavish passageway? Problem? On long weekends/holidays, there was no cleaning crew. So they purchased a \"\"Mister Sensaphone\"\" (yes there really was such a device), so that when the can started to overflow, the moisture detector would trigger, it would page the system administrator, and they would drive into the office and bail it out. All of that because they did not want to pay $30,000 to install additional ac capacity on the roof and ventilate their server room. I think they were actually proud of this setup, like it was a demonstration of some \"\"out of the box\"\" creativity.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0cdf32009ce7d2b68f9a30325a4cce95", "text": "There's nothing particularly special about a two million dollar cheque. While they aren't commonplace, the bank certainly has experience with them. Many ATMs won't allow a deposit of that size but the bank cashiers will certainly accept them. They will typically get a supervisor to sign off on the deposit and may ask about the source of the money, for fraud prevention reasons. They may be held for longer than a smaller cheque if the bank manager chooses to do so. If there's nothing remotely suspicious (for example, it is a cheque from an insurance company for an expected payout), you should expect it will clear in about a week. On the other hand, if it is a cheque from a bank in another country and the bank manager has any reason to suspect it may not be legitimate, they may hold it for a month or more. Even then, you are not guaranteed the cheque was legitimate. This is used in a common scam.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e4516c0bdef564656983acf144d03063", "text": "\"Typical for large companies. My company isn't declaring bankruptcy but every year they \"\"run out\"\" of money for us to take legitimate business trips to support customers. Meanwhile executives are constantly flying around so they can give speeches that say nothing to people who don't care. Even if they just stopped spending so much when they traveled (international first class tickets are crazy expensive) we'd probably still have enough to go around.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "46d1e11b56a29794cf547d3707d415e6", "text": "big banks are not the only Big Money out there. In fact, big banks have way more oversight than most other businesses. Everyone uses banks for most things. It's kind of hard NOT to these days. But banks are built to handle money. That's what they do! Of COURSE banks are almost always involved in everything that requires money. I don't understand why you brought this up at all. It doesn't really support your point, and has little to do with my point.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "0bc6398c3f04ee3f1e4c7f8cf593ea0e", "text": "There is nothing wrong with self directed IRA's the problem is that most of the assets they specialize in are better done in other ways. Real estate is already extremely tax advantaged in the US. Buying inside a Traditional IRA would turn longterm capital gains (currently 15%) into ordinary income taxed at your tax rate when you withdraw this may be a plus or minus, but it is more likely than not that your ordinary income tax rate is higher. You also can't do the live in each house for 2 years before selling plan to eliminate capital gains taxes (250k individual 500k married couple). The final problem is that you are going to have problems getting a mortgage (it won't be a conforming loan) and will likely have to pay cash for any real estate purchased inside your IRA. Foreign real estate is similar to above except you have additional tax complexities. The key to the ownership in a business is that there are limits on who can control the business (you and maybe your family can't control the business). If you are experienced doing angel investing this might be a viable option (assuming you have a really big IRA you want to gamble with). If you want to speculate on precious metals you will probably be better offer using ETF's in a more traditional brokerage account (lower transactions costs more liquidity).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "76dec13b2736c8e265b536a3bafca12f", "text": "\"This type of account will sell you just enough rope to hang yourself. Gold is at $1400 or so. Were you around when it first hit $800 in '79/'80? I was. No one was saying \"\"sell\"\" only forecasts of $2000. If you bought and held, you've still not broken even to inflation let alone simple market returns.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "370a026942c01c105a8f898c44d99b69", "text": "The main advantage and disadvantage I can see in a scenario like this are - how savvy and good an investor are you? It's a good way to create below-market average returns if you're not that good at investing and returns way above market average if you are...", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9a56cf08aa0055bd8866c3a1cc7284ba", "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.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "2e808270f61e48530726c53dae641c17", "text": "One big advantage that the 529 plan has is that most operate like a target date fund. As the child approaches college age the investment becomes more conservative. While you can do this by changing the mix of investments, you can't do it without capital gains taxes. Many of the issues you are concerned about are addressed: they are usable by other family members, they don't hurt financial aid offers, they address scholarships, they can be used for books or room and board. Many states also give you a tax break in the year of the contribution.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8a62de7c839adaec6cb463239c9d06ab", "text": "Years before retirement isn't related at all to the Pretax IRA/Roth IRA decision, except insomuch as income typically trends up over time for most people. If tax rates were constant (both at income levels and over time!), Roth and Pretax would be identical. Say you designate 100k for contribution, 20% tax rate. 80k contributed in Roth vs. 100k contributed in Pretax, then 20% tax rate on withdrawal, ends up with the same amount in your bank account after withdrawal - you're just moving the 20% tax grab from one time to another. If you choose Roth, it's either because you like some of the flexibility (like taking out contributions after 5 years), or because you are currently paying a lower marginal rate than you expect you will be in the future - either because you aren't making all that much this year, or because you are expecting rates to rise due to political changes in our society. Best is likely a diversified approach - some of your money pretax, some posttax. At least some should be in a pretax IRA, because you get some tax-free money each year thanks to the personal exemption. If you're working off of 100% post-tax, you are paying more tax than you ought unless you're getting enough Social Security to cover the whole 0% bucket (and probably the 10% bucket, also). So for example, you're thinking you want 70k a year. Assuming single and ignoring social security (as it's a very complicated issue - Joe Taxpayer has a nice blog article regarding it that he links to in his answer), you get $10k or so tax-free, then another $9k or so at 10% - almost certainly lower than what you pay now. So you could aim to get $19k out of your pre-tax IRA, then, and 51k out of your post-tax IRA, meaning you only pay $900 in taxes on your income. Of course, if you're in the 25% bucket now, you may want to use more pretax, since you could then take that out - all the way to around $50k (standard exemption + $40k or so point where 25% hits). But on the other hand, Social Security would probably change that equation back to using primarily Roth if you're getting a decent Social Security check.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b36177c86a000963a421bfef2ab82829", "text": "I use the self-directed option for the 457b plan at my job, which basically allows me to invest in any mutual fund or ETF. We get Schwab as a broker, so the commissions are reasonable. Personally, I think it's great, because some of the funds offered by the core plan are limited. Generally, the trustees of your plan are going to limit your investment options, as participants generally make poor investment choices (even within the limited options available in a 401k) and may sue the employer after losing their savings. If I was a decision-maker in this area, there is no way I would ever sign off to allowing employees to mess around with options.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "304819453c17e5a53069b7a6f1a7afe7", "text": "\"Whether you contribute to an IRA (Traditional or Roth) and whether you contribute to a 401k (Traditional or Roth) are independent. IRAs have one contribution limit, and 401ks have another contribution limits, and these limits are independent. I see no reason why you wouldn't maximize the amount of money in tax-advantaged accounts, if you can afford to. In your first year of work, especially if you only work for part of the year, you're likely in a lower tax bracket than in the future, so Roth is better than Traditional. Another thing to note is that the money in the Roth IRA can be part of your \"\"safety net\"\" -- contributions to a Roth IRA (but not earnings) can be withdrawn at any time without tax or penalty. So if there is an emergency you can withdraw it, and it wouldn't be any worse than in a taxable account. And if you don't need it, then it will enjoy the tax benefits of being in the IRA.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7513669b507e34a1436fd1b73c0e25b7", "text": "\"Here are the few scenarios that may be worth noting in terms of using different types of accounts: Traditional IRA. In this case, the monies would grow tax-deferred and all monies coming out will be taxed as ordinary income. Think of it as everything is in one big black box and the whole thing is coming out to be taxed. Roth IRA. In this case, you could withdraw the contributions anytime without penalty. (Source should one want it for further research.) Past 59.5, the withdrawals are tax-free in my understanding. Thus, one could access some monies earlier than retirement age if one considers all the contributions that are at least 5 years old. Taxable account. In this case, each year there will be distributions to pay taxes as well as anytime one sells shares as that will trigger capital gains. In this case, taxes are worth noting as depending on the index fund one may have various taxes to consider. For example, a bond index fund may have some interest that would be taxed that the IRA could shelter to some extent. While index funds can be a low-cost option, in some cases there may be capital gains each year to keep up with the index. For example, small-cap indices and value indices would have stocks that may \"\"outgrow\"\" the index by either becoming mid-cap or large-cap in the case of small-cap or the value stock's valuation rises enough that it becomes a growth stock that is pulled out of the index. This is why some people may prefer to use tax-advantaged accounts for those funds that may not be as tax-efficient. The Bogleheads have an article on various accounts that can also be useful as dg99's comment referenced. Disclosure: I'm not an accountant or work for the IRS.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ca29b83a6547e42e4c143c3bb5a62b26", "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.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4485934741da1d19049bf8ec8391f61c", "text": "There are 3 account types your question discusses and each has its good/bad points. The above is a snapshot of these account types. IRAs have income restrictions that may disallow a deduction on the traditional, or any deposit to Roth, etc. If this does not address your question, please comment, and I'll edit for better clarity.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6717866315a55e750928ea6245ad3f8b", "text": "I don't quite understand your thought process here. First, in a tax-advantaged retirement account you are NOT allowed to engage in a transaction with yourself. If you just want to run a business and be able to write off expenses, how is using the self-directed IRA relevant? You can either buy the condo using your tax-advantaged account and rent it out to regular tenants. Or you buy the condo yourself using your own money and then operate your business so you can deduct business expenses from doing so. 401k's allow you to take a loan out of it, so you can look into that as well.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "24b0b013a3385858eda59f1359a4f523", "text": "You can't do what you would like to do, unless your business has another, unrelated investor or is willing to invest an equal amount of funds + .01 into a corporation which will employ you. You will then need to set up a self-directed IRA. Additionally, you will need a trustee to account for all the disbursements from your IRA.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "196928bfe685a39adecb60dcd4ad2cd5", "text": "Advantage: more money. The financial tradeoff is usually to your benefit: Given these, for having your money locked up for the average length of the vesting periods (some is locked up for 3 months, some is locked up for nearly 0), you get a 10% return. Overall, it's like a 1.5% bonus for the year, assuming you were to sell everything right away. Of course, whether or not you wish to keep the stock depends on how you value MSFT as an investment. The disadvantage lies in a couple parts:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "49db93a60acf8d9b2a5a8d5ef79c49e5", "text": "\"I disagree with the IRA suggestion. Why IRA? You're a student, so probably won't get much tax benefits, so why locking the money for 40 years? You can do the same investments through any broker account as in IRA, but be able to cash out in need. 5 years is long enough term to put in a mutual fund or ETF and expect reasonable (>1.25%) gains. You can use the online \"\"analyst\"\" tools that brokers like ETrade or Sharebuilder provide to decide on how to spread your portfolio, 15K is enough for diversifying over several areas. If you want to keep it as cash - check the on-line savings accounts (like Capitol One, for example, or Ally, ING Direct that will merge with Capitol One and others) for better rates, brick and mortar banks can not possible compete with what you can get online.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2889ad9fd541beb4dccf1c5c25b0dfaa", "text": "You have many options, and there is no one-size-fits-all recommendation. You can contribute to your IRA in addition to your 401(k), but because you have that 401(k), it is not tax-deductable. So there is little advantage in putting money in the IRA compared to saving it in a personal investment account, where you keep full control over it. It does, however, open the option to do a backdoor-rollover from that IRA to a Roth IRA, which is a good idea to have; you will not pay any taxes if you do that conversion, if the money in the IRA was not tax deducted (which it isn't as you have the 401(k)). You can also contribute to a Roth IRA directly, if you are under the income limits for that (193k$ for married, I think, not sure for single). If this is the case, you don't need to take the detour through the IRA with the backdoor-rollover. Main advantage for Roth is that gains are tax free. There are many other answers here that give details on where to save if you have more money to save. In a nutshell, In between is 'pay off all high-interest debt', I think right after 1. - if you have any. 'High-Interest' means anything that costs more interest than you can expect when investing.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "776390a58b31e5780cd3fe1a24d60e90", "text": "Tax-advantaged accounts mean you pay less tax. You fundamentally pay less tax on IRAs and 401ks than other accounts. That's their benefit. You keep more money at the expense of the government. It makes sense for the government to limit it. If you don't understand why you pay less tax, you must consider the time value of money -- the principal now is the same value of money as the principal + earnings later. With IRAs and 401ks, you only pay income tax once: with Roth IRAs and 401ks, you pay tax on the entire amount of money once when you earn it; with pre-tax Traditional IRAs and 401ks, you pay tax on the entire amount of money once when withdraw it. However, with outside accounts, you have to pay tax more than once: you pay once when you earn it, and pay tax again on the earnings later, earnings that grew from money that was already taxed (which, when considering time value, means that the earnings have already been taxed), but is taxed again. For things like savings in a bank, it's even worse: interest (which grew from money already taxed) is taxed every year, which means some money you pay tax on n times, if you have it in there n years. If you don't understand the above, you can see with an example. We start with $1000 pre-tax wages and for simplicity will assume a flat 25% income tax rate, and a growth rate of 10% per year, and get the cash (assume it's a qualified withdrawal) in 10 years.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b1d966d38507f2431e2031ce742cfa87", "text": "Compared with a Sole Proprietorship, the main disadvantages of an S-Corporation or an LLC are that it adds a lot of management overhead (time, and possibly money if you don't do it all yourself), and there are fees you must pay to incorporate, as well as additional yearly maintenance fees which vary by state. You should be able to weigh the tax savings and liability protection against the extra costs and hassle, and see which way the scales tip. As a rule of thumb, the bigger your business gets or the more income you make, the more attractive incorporating becomes. Note there are some additional taxes that certain jurisdictions impose on business income. For example, IL and CA charge 1.5% tax, NY is less, but NYC is 8.85%! In NYC specifically, you could actually end up paying slightly more tax as an S-Corp than you would as a Sole Proprietorship. In most places though, the nominal local taxes will still be less than the FICA taxes you could potentially save.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0dbb3f8cfda404d02e3a98e694442773", "text": "\"So many complicated answers for a straight forward question. First to this point \"\"I am failing to see why would a person get an IRA, instead of just putting the same amount of money into a mutual fund...\"\" An IRA can be invested in a mutual fund. The IRA benefit over standard mutual fund is pre-tax contribution lowering your current tax liability. The advantage of an IRA over a 401k is control. Your employer controls where the 401k is invested, you control where your IRA is invested. Often employers have a very small number of options, because this keeps their costs with the brokerage low. 401k is AMAZING if you have employer matched contributions. Use them to the maximum your employer will match. After that OWN your IRA. Control is key when it comes to your money. On IRA's. Buy ROTH first. Contribute the calendar maximum. Then get a traditional. The benefit of ROTH is that you already paid taxes on the contribution so your withdrawal is not taxed AND they do not tax the interest earned like they do on a standard mutual fund.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "95ed38e69290471c4ff58513f465c7b1", "text": "\"Any shares you buy when a company is listed on one market will remain yours if the company moves to another market. Markets and exchanges like AIM are just venues for dealing in shares - indeed you can deal in those shares anywhere else that will allow you as well as on the AIM. The benefit of being listed in a market is that trade in the shares will be more \"\"liquid\"\" - there's more likely to be people who want to buy and sell them at any given time. The bigger concern would be what happens if the company does badly and drops out of the AIM entirely. You'd still be able to sell your shares to any willing buyer, but finding that buyer might get harder.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "832437bac388e9144d8a839979a40ee4", "text": "I have had this happen a couple of times because of splits or sales of portions of the company. The general timeline was to announce how the split was to be handled; then the split; then a freeze in purchasing stock in the other company; then a freeze in sales; followed by a short blackout period; then the final transfers to funds/options/cash based on a mapping announced at the start of the process. You need to answer two questions: To determine if the final transactions will make the market move you have to understand how many shares are involved compared to the typical daily volume. There are two caveats: professional investors will be aware of the transaction date and can either ignore the employee transactions or try and take advantage of them; There may also be a mirroring set of transactions if the people left in the old company were awarded shares in your company as part of the sale. If you are happy with the default mapping then you can do nothing, and let the transaction happen based on the announced timeline. It is easy, and you don't have to worry about deadlines. If you don't like the default mapping then you need to know when the blackout period starts, so you don't end up not being able to perform the steps you want when you want. Timing is up to you. If the market doesn't like the acquisition/split it make make sense to make the move now, or wait until the last possible day depending on which part they don't like. Only you can answer that question.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "afb4e4a37f3f6133905d174f36e03ee3", "text": "Well, the potential problem is that the FTSE 100 could go down, or just not up. Really, it's as simple as that. After all, why diversify if the FTSE 100 will only go up? So, the question is, why wait to diversify? Why not add in the Gilt ETF for a little government bond exposure? Why not a Corp. bond ETF? Maybe a little of that Global ex-UK for a little foreign stock exposure? That said, saving is better than not saving, so if starting it off with just the FTSE 100 gets you saving, go for it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cf2cc994457ea13e93d3bd7c72e58655", "text": "I'm not familiar with the deal, nor is this my specialty, but a cursory Google search yields that Greybull (the buyer) also [agreed to invest £400m in Scunthorpe](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/04/11/greybull-nears-deal-to-buy-tata-steels-scunthorpe-plant/). The £1 was, as far as I can tell, somewhat symbolic. [The whole thing](http://www.businessinsider.com/tata-steel-sells-uk-business-to-greybull-capital-2016-4?r=UK&amp;IR=T) sort of reads to me like Tata wanted it off their books and the UK government wanted it to be [revitalized](https://twitter.com/EdConwaySky/status/719478349886791680), but again, not really my wheelhouse.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b7b84c856eb772803ebfa337eef126f3", "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.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c11fe5f13315fd4fb806ae0e7b291386", "text": "\"As far as I know, the answer to this is generally \"\"no.\"\" The closest thing would be to identify the stock transfer company representing the company that you want to hold and buy through them. (I have held this way, but I don't know if it's available on all stocks.) This eliminates the broker, but there's still a \"\"middle man\"\" in the transfer company. Note this section from the Stock transfer agent Wikipedia article: A public company usually only designates one company to transfer its stock. Stock transfer agents also run annual meetings as inspector of elections, proxy voting, and special meetings of shareholders. They are considered the official keeper of the corporate shareholder records. The decision to have a single transfer company is a practical one, ensuring that there is one entity responsible for recording this data - Hence even if you could buy stock \"\"directly\"\" from the company that you want to own, it would likely still get routed through the transfer company for recording.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e0622d970d4c45fc8bc60f986f22d96c", "text": "My understanding was that if a company buys back shares then those shares are 'extinguished' I.e. the rest of the shareholders now own a greater portion of the company. However, if there is only one share left, then the company could not buy it because doing so would extinguish it leaving the company without an owner. That result would run contrary to the requirements for an incorporated company in countries like NZ and Australia.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bc1e558425d3536d26b4dd208926dff9", "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.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0bfe5f2d434119bfe551f072cfae1166", "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).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ca19675b030e68b3aa2c000b08464550", "text": "I work at BATS Chi-X Europe and wanted to provide some clarity/answers to these questions. BATS Chi-X Europe is a Recognised Investment Exchange, so it is indeed a stock exchange. Sometimes the term “equity market” could be used when explaining our business, but essentially we are a stock exchange. As some background, BATS Chi-X Europe was formed by the acquisition of Chi-X Europe by BATS Trading in November 2011. At the time of the acquisition, each company operated as a Multilateral Trading Facility (MTF) for the trading of pan-European equities via a single trading platform. The category of MTF was introduced by MIFID (markets in Financial Instrument Directive) in 2007, which introduced competition in equities trading and allowed European stocks, to be traded on any European platform. Until 2007, many European stocks had to be traded only their local exchanges due to so-called “Concentration Rules”. Following the acquisition, BATS Chi-X Europe became the largest MTF in Europe, offering trading in more than 2,000 securities (2,700 securities by September 2013) across 15 major European markets, on a single trading platform. In May 2013, BATS Chi-X Europe received Recognised Investment Exchange status from the UK Financial Conduct Authority, meaning that BATS Chi-X Europe has changed from an MTF status to full exchange status. In response to question 1: The equities traded on BATS Chi-X Europe are listed on stock exchanges such as the LSE but also listed on the other European Exchanges. The term “third party” equities is not particularly useful as all stock trading in Europe is generally a “second hand” business referred to as “secondary market” trading. At the time of listing a firm issues shares; trading in these shares after the listing exercise is generally what happens in equity markets and these shares can be bought and sold on stock exchanges across Europe. Secondary market trading describes all trading on all exchanges or MTFs that takes place after the listing. In response to question 2: BATS Chi-X Europe trades over 2,700 stocks on its own trading platform. When trading on BATS Chi-X Europe, orders are executed on their own platform and will not end up of the LSE order books or platform. The fact that a stock was first listed on the LSE, does not mean that all trading in this stock happens via the LSE. However settlement process ensures that stocks end up being logged in a single depository. This means that a stock bought on BATS Chi-X Europe can be offset against the same stock sold on the LSE. In response to question 3: As noted above, BATS Chi-X Europe received Recognised Investment Exchange (RIE) status from the UK Financial Conduct Authority in May 2013, meaning that BATS Chi-X Europe has changed from an MTF status to full stock exchange status. As an exchange / RIE, BATS Chi-X Europe is authorised to offer primary and secondary listings alongside its existing business. According to the Federations of European Securities Exchanges (FESE), BATS Chi-X Europe has been the largest equity exchange in Europe by value traded in every month so far in 2013. In August, 24.1% of European equities trading in the 15 markets covered were traded on BATS Chi-X Europe. In July and August, the average notional value traded on BATS Chi-X Europe was around €7.2 billion per day. Hope this information is helpful.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cd093cedb934ad8da9a795727991701a", "text": "Keep in mind that the exchanges do not hold, buy, or sell the stock - people (or funds) do. All the exchange does is facilitate the sale of stock from one entity to another. So the shares outstanding (and market cap) for a company are set regardless of how many exchanges the stock is listed on. The company typically indicates the number of shares outstanding in its financial statements. I do not know if the exchange itself keeps track of shares outstanding; it may just report whatever the company publishes. So theoretically, if you wanted to buy all of the stock of a company, you could do it all in one exchange, provided that all the existing holders of the stock were willing to sell you their shares. There are many issues with that, though, which I don't think are germane to your question.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9ad90a43dbbddabdd2b952044b0237b6", "text": "Transfers of money to the UK for any purpose are not generally taxed, so you can just transfer it here and invest. Once the money is here, you'll be taxed on the business activity like anyone else - the company will have to pay corporation tax, and depending on your own residency you might have to pay income tax on any distributions from the company.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d666c38057c10de0df25b0b819739a26", "text": "It doesn't matter which exchange a share was purchased through (or if it was even purchased on an exchange at all--physical share certificates can be bought and sold outside of any exchange). A share is a share, and any share available for purchase in New York is available to be purchased in London. Buying all of a company's stock is not something that can generally be done through the stock market. The practical way to accomplish buying a company out is to purchase a controlling interest, or enough shares to have enough votes to bind the board to a specific course of action. Then vote to sell all outstanding shares to another company at a particular fixed price per share. Market capitalization is an inaccurate measure of the size of a company in the first place, but if you want to quantify it, you can take the number of outstanding shares (anywhere and everywhere) and multiply them by the price on any of the exchanges that sell it. That will give you the market capitalization in the currency that is used by whatever exchange you chose.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b69187cb5be0290794bbdd55916a4d36", "text": "Gold is traded on the London stock exchange (LSE) and the New York stock exchange (NYSE) under various separate asset tickers, mainly denominated in sterling and US dollars respectively. These stocks will reflect FX changes very quickly. If you sold LSE gold and foreign exchanged your sterling to dollars to buy NYSE gold you would almost certainly lose on the spreads upon selling, FX'ing and re-buying. In short, the same asset doesn't exist in multiple currencies. It may have the same International Securities Identification Number (ISIN), but it can trade with different Stock Exchange Daily Official List (SEDOL) identifiers, reflecting different currencies and/or exchanges, each carrying a different price at any one time.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5db2500544c713428b4b849702c8e351", "text": "In order to see whether you can buy or sell some given quantity of a stock at the current bid price, you need a counterparty (a buyer) who is willing to buy the number of stocks you are wishing to offload. To see whether such a counterparty exists, you can look at the stock's order book, or level two feed. The order book shows all the people who have placed buy or sell orders, the price they are willing to pay, and the quantity they demand at that price. Here is the order book from earlier this morning for the British pharmaceutical company, GlaxoSmithKline PLC. Let's start by looking at the left-hand blue part of the book, beneath the yellow strip. This is called the Buy side. The book is sorted with the highest price at the top, because this is the best price that a seller can presently obtain. If several buyers bid at the same price, then the oldest entry on the book takes precedence. You can see we have five buyers each willing to pay 1543.0 p (that's 1543 British pence, or £15.43) per share. Therefore the current bid price for this instrument is 1543.0. The first buyer wants 175 shares, the next, 300, and so on. The total volume that is demanded at 1543.0p is 2435 shares. This information is summarized on the yellow strip: 5 buyers, total volume of 2435, at 1543.0. These are all buyers who want to buy right now and the exchange will make the trade happen immediately if you put in a sell order for 1543.0 p or less. If you want to sell 2435 shares or fewer, you are good to go. The important thing to note is that once you sell these bidders a total of 2435 shares, then their orders are fulfilled and they will be removed from the order book. At this point, the next bidder is promoted up the book; but his price is 1542.5, 0.5 p lower than before. Absent any further changes to the order book, the bid price will decrease to 1542.5 p. This makes sense because you are selling a lot of shares so you'd expect the market price to be depressed. This information will be disseminated to the level one feed and the level one graph of the stock price will be updated. Thus if you have more than 2435 shares to sell, you cannot expect to execute your order at the bid price in one go. Of course, the more shares you are trying to get rid of, the further down the buy side you will have to go. In reality for a highly liquid stock as this, the order book receives many amendments per second and it is unlikely that your trade would make much difference. On the right hand side of the display you can see the recent trades: these are the times the trades were done (or notified to the exchange), the price of the trade, the volume and the trade type (AT means automatic trade). GlaxoSmithKline is a highly liquid stock with many willing buyers and sellers. But some stocks are less liquid. In order to enable traders to find a counterparty at short notice, exchanges often require less liquid stocks to have market makers. A market maker places buy and sell orders simultaneously, with a spread between the two prices so that they can profit from each transaction. For instance Diurnal Group PLC has had no trades today and no quotes. It has a more complicated order book, enabling both ordinary buyers and sellers to list if they wish, but market makers are separated out at the top. Here you can see that three market makers are providing liquidity on this stock, Peel Hunt (PEEL), Numis (NUMS) and Winterflood (WINS). They have a very unpalatable spread of over 5% between their bid and offer prices. Further in each case the sum total that they are willing to trade is 3000 shares. If you have more than three thousand Dirunal Group shares to sell, you would have to wait for the market makers to come back with a new quote after you'd sold the first 3000.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "28409171ea6205d636f9f30e07fba1f0", "text": "\"Yes and no. There are two primary ways to do this. The first is known as \"\"cross listing\"\". Basically, this means that shares are listed in the home country are the primary shares, but are also traded on secondary markets using mechanisms like ADRs or Globally Registered Shares. Examples of this method include Vodafone and Research in Motion. The second is \"\"dual listing\"\". This is when two corporations that function as a single business are listed in multiple places. Examples of this include Royal Dutch Shell and Unilever. Usually companies choose this method for tax purposes when they merge or acquire an international company. Generally speaking, you can safely buy shares in whichever market makes sense to you.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "547c5288c6257859afa48a19b2a24f88", "text": "\"As an aside, why does it seem to be difficult to get a conclusive answer to this question? I'm going to start by trying to answer this question and I think the answer here will help answer the other questions. Here is a incomplete list of the challenges involved: So my question is, is there any evidence that value investing actually beats the market? Yes there is a lot of evidence that it works and there is a lot of evidence that it does not. timday's has a great link on this. Some rules/methods work over some periods some work during others. The most famous evidence for value investing probably comes from Fama and French who were very careful and clever in solving many of the above problems and had a large persistent data set, but their idea is very different from Damodaran's, for instance, and hard to implement though getting easier. Is the whole field a waste of time? Because of the above problems this is a hard question. Some people like Warren Buffet have clearly made a lot of money doing this. Though it is worth remembering a good amount of the money these famous investors make is off of fees for investing other peoples' money. If you understand fundamental analysis well you can get a job making a lot of money doing it for a company investing other peoples' money. The markets are very random that it is very hard for people to tell if you are good at it and since markets generally go up it is easy to claim you are making money for people, but clearly banks and hedge funds see significant value in good analysts so it is likely not entirely random. Especially if you are a good writer you can make a more money here than most other jobs. Is it worth it for the average investor saving for retirement? Very, very hard to say. Your time might be better spent on your day job if you have one. Remember because of the fees and added risk involved over say index investing more \"\"Trading is Hazardous to Your Wealth.\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dabc7412a6bb3aa6b04232e77185d57a", "text": "\"The June 2014 issue of Barclays Wealth's Compass magazine had a very nice succinct article on this topic: \"\"Value investing – does a rules-based approach work?\"\". It examines the performance of value and growth styles of investment in the MSCI World and S&P500 arenas for a few decades back, and reveals a surprisingly complicated picture, depending on sector, region and time-period. Their summary is basically: A closer look however shows that the overall success of value strategies derives mainly from the 1970s and 1980s. ... in the US, value has underperformed growth for over 25 years since peaking in July 1988. Globally, value experienced a 30% setback in the late 1990s so that there are now periods with a length of nearly 13 years over which growth has outperformed. So the answer to \"\"does it beat the market?\"\" is \"\"it depends...\"\". Update in response to comment below: the question of risk adjusted returns is interesting. To quote another couple of fragments from the piece: Since December 1974, [MSCI world] value has outperformed growth by 2.6% annually, with lower risk. This outperformance on a risk-adjusted basis is the so-called value premium that Eugene Fama and Kenneth French first identified in 1992... and That outperformance has, however, come with more risk. Historical volatility of the pure style indices has been 21-22% compared to 16% for the market. ... From a maximum drawdown perspective, the 69% drop of pure value during the financial crisis exceeded the 51% drop of the overall market.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "887b3200296cd2619401dfefffaeee33", "text": "One aspect of this - no matter which valuation method you choose - is that there are limited shares available to buy. Other people already know those valuation methods and have decided to buy those shares, paying higher than the previous person to notice this and take a risk. So this means that even after you have calculated the company's assets and future growth, you will be possibly buying shares that are way more expensive and overvalued than they will be in the future. You have to consider that, or you may be stuck with a loss for decades. And during that time, the company will get new management or their industry will change, completely undermining whatever fundamentals you originally considered.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "54284d2a3c8a95d3298247d368e50224", "text": "\"The Investment Entertainment Pricing Theory (INEPT) has this bit to note: The returns of small growth stocks are ridiculously low—just 2.18 percent per year since 1927 (versus 17.47 percent for small value, 10.06 percent for large growth, and 13.99 percent for large value). Where the S & P 500 would be a blend of large-cap growth and value so does that meet your \"\"beat the market over the long term\"\" as 1927-1999 would be long for most people.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "70591461ef9fce7e7b32b7b259bf14f6", "text": "The quant aspect '''''. This is the kind of math I was wondering if it existed, but now it sounds like it is much more complex in reality then optimizing by evaluating different cost of capital. Thank you for sharing", "title": "" }, { "docid": "081512f0aaafbef6ec324b5e271c4821", "text": "\"Check out Professor Damodaran's website: http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/ . Tons of good stuff there to get you started. If you want more depth, he's written what is widely considered the bible on the subject of valuation: \"\"Investment Valuation\"\". DCF is very well suited to stock analysis. One doesn't need to know, or forecast the future stock price to use it. In fact, it's the opposite. Business fundamentals are forecasted to estimate the sum total of future cash flows from the company, discounted back to the present. Divide that by shares outstanding, and you have the value of the stock. The key is to remember that DCF calculations are very sensitive to inputs. Be conservative in your estimates of future revenue growth, earnings margins, and capital investment. I usually develop three forecasts: pessimistic, neutral, optimistic. This delivers a range of value instead of a false-precision single number. This may seem odd: I find the DCF invaluable, but for the process, not so much the result. The input sensitivity requires careful work, and while a range of value is useful, the real benefit comes from being required to answer the questions to build the forecast. It provides a framework to analyze a business. You're just trying to properly fill in the boxes, estimate the unguessable. To do so, you pore through the financials. Skimming, reading with a purpose. In the end you come away with a fairly deep understanding of the business, how they make money, why they'll continue to make money, etc.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ae5328d39b4595fdc2abf63ff7bdfb46", "text": "I wouldn't read into the title too much. We live in a world of click bait. I'd agree with your statement, that really the point is that reading fiction makes you better at understanding human emotion which makes you better at investing because the market is very emotional by nature. Of course I'd say if this is your position I'd be taking some long straddle positions on options leading up to conference meetings on big companies like Apple, Google, Amazon, Tesla and calling it a day.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "89d0451472da336c5b36dca90f59adb4", "text": "Many good sources on YouTube that you can find easily once you know what to look for. Start following the stock market, present value / future value, annuities &amp; perpetuities, bonds, financial ratios, balance sheets and P&amp;L statements, ROI, ROA, ROE, cash flows, net present value and IRR, forecasting, Monte Carlo simulation (heavy on stats but useful in finance), the list goes on. If you can find a cheap textbook, it'll help with the concepts. Investopedia is sometimes useful in learning concepts but not really on application. Khan Academy is a good YouTube channel. The Intelligent Investor is a good foundational book for investing. There are several good case studies on Harvard Business Review to practice with. I've found that case studies are most helpful in learning how to apply concept and think outside the box. Discover how you can apply it to aspects of your everyday life. Finance is a great profession to pursue. Good luck on your studies!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "69e391d3a97df557994cd37dac75471a", "text": "Value investing is an investment approach that relies on buying securities below their intrinsic values. There are two main concepts; one is the Intrinsic Value and the other is Margin of Safety. Intrinsic value is the value of the underlying business - if we are talking about stocks - that can be calculated through carefully analyzing the business looking at all aspects of it. If there is an intrinsic value exists for a company then there is a price tag we can put on its shares as well. Value investing is looking to buy shares well below its intrinsic value. It is important to know that there is no correct intrinsic value exists for a company and two people can come up with different figures, if they were presented the same data. Calculating the intrinsic value for a business is the hardest part of value investing. Margin of Safety is the difference between the buying price of a stock and its intrinsic value. Value investors are insisting on buying stocks well below their intrinsic value, where the margin of safety is 20%-30% or even more. This concepts is protecting them from poor decisions and market downturns. It is also providing a room for error, when calculating the intrinsic value. The approach was introduced by Benjamin Graham and David Dodd in a book called Security Analysis in 1934. Other famous investor using this approach is Warren Buffet Books to read: I would start to read the first two book first.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "68ad2d6cc4afb29c1b2f1b4a8f0d38f1", "text": "All you have to do is ask Warren Buffet that question and you'll have your answer! (grin) He is the very definition of someone who relies on the fundamentals as a major part of his investment decisions. Investors who rely on analysis of fundamentals tend to be more long-term strategic planners than most other investors, who seem more focused on momentum-based thinking. There are some industries which have historically low P/E ratios, such as utilities, but I don't think that implies poor growth prospects. How often does a utility go out of business? I think oftentimes if you really look into the numbers, there are companies reporting higher earnings and earnings growth, but is that top-line growth, or is it the result of cost-cutting and other measures which artificially imply a healthy and growing company? A healthy company is one which shows year-over-year organic growth in revenues and earnings from sales, not one which has to continually make new acquisitions or use accounting tricks to dress up the bottom line. Is it possible to do well by investing in companies with solid fundamentals? Absolutely. You may not realize the same rate of short-term returns as others who use momentum-based trading strategies, but over the long haul I'm willing to bet you'll see a better overall average return than they do.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8ad8c31cf38ded9ae11e02d78b881164", "text": "\"Thank you for the in-depth, detailed explanation; it's refreshing to see a concise, non verbose explanation on reddit. I have a couple of questions, if that's alright. Firstly, concerning mezzanine investors. Based on my understanding from Google, these people invest after a venture has been partially financed (can I use venture like that in a financial context, or does it refer specifically to venture capital?) so they would receive a smaller return, yes? Is mezzanine investing particularly profitable? It sounds like you'd need a wide portfolio. Secondly, why is dilution so important further down the road? Is it to do with valuation? Finally, at what point would a company aim to meet an IPO? Is it case specific, or is there a general understanding of the \"\"best time\"\"? Thank you so much for answering my questions.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "20fb453bd63f1f4ded5fa3e211933994", "text": "Value investing is just an investment strategy, it's an alternative to technical investing. Buffet made money picking stocks. It's not obvious how that adds value, but it does. Everything about the stock market is ultimately about IPOs. Without active trading, of stocks after issue, no one would buy at the IPO. The purpose of an IPO is to finance the long-term growth of a business, which is the point in the process where the value to the people gets created. There is a group of elites that needs to be dealt with, you're correct, but I worry that your definition of this group is overly broad.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "25e56af0f5cbdab0fbbef9de4082a0b0", "text": "Hey, you seem like you read a lot about what a quant does on the Internet... I'm guessing zerohedge mostly and maybe some financial pop culture books about the financial crisis. Why don't you leave that out of this discussion as it is pretty misleading. Quants price relative risk and that is important for a number of reasons.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ebb20a00f7a59b2682b77987bd4151f6", "text": "The steps you outlined are fine by themselves. Step 5, seeking criticism can be less helpful than one may think. See stocktwits.com There are a lot of opposing opinions all of which can be correct over different time-frames. Try and quantify your confidence and develop different strategies for different confidence levels. I was never smart enough or patient with follow through to be a successful value investor. It was very frustrating to watch stocks trade sideways for years before the company's intrinsic value was better reflected in the market. Also, you could make an excellent pick, but a macro change and slump could set you back a year and raise doubts. In my experience portfolio management techniques like asset allocation and dollar-cost-averaging is what made my version of value investing work. Your interest in 10k/10q is something to applaud. Is there something specific about 10k/10q that you do not understand? Context is key, these types of reports are more relevant and understandable when compared to competitors in the same sector. It is good to assess over confidence! It is also good to diversify your knowledge and the effort put into Securities Analysis 6th edition will help with other books in the field. I see a bit of myself in your post, and if you are like me, than subsequent readings, and full mastery of the concepts in 'Securities & Analysis 6th ed.' will lead to over confidence, or a false understanding as there are many factors at play in the market. So many, that even the most scientific approaches to investing can just as equally be described as an 'art'. I'm not aware of the details of your situation, but in general, for you to fully realize the benefits from applying the principals of value investing shared by Graham and more recently Warren Buffett, you must invest on the level that requires use of the consolidation or equity method of accounting, e.g. > 20% ownership. Sure, the same principals used by Buffett can work on a smaller scale, but a small scale investor is best served by wealth accumulation, which can take many forms. Not the addition of instant equity via acquisitions to their consolidated financials. Lastly, to test what you have learned about value investing, and order execution, try the inverse. At least on paper. Short a stock with low value and a high P/E. TWTR may be a good example? Learn what it is like to have your resources at stake, and the anguish of market and security volatility. It would be a lot easier to wait it out as a long-term value investor from a beach house in Santa Barbara :)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "399db64a304c7fc66c5a72efd53d8696", "text": "How you use the metric is super important. Because it subtracts cash, it does not represent 'value'. It represents the ongoing financing that will be necessary if both the equity plus debt is bought by one person, who then pays himself a dividend with that free cash. So if you are Private Equity, this measures your net investment at t=0.5, not the price you pay at t=0. If you are a retail investor, who a) won't be buying the debt, b) won't have any control over things like tax jurisdictions, c) won't be receiving any cash dividend, etc etc .... the metric is pointless.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f6b93d56422824ec67ede47fd8faf611", "text": "Very interesting. I would like to expand beyond just precious metals and stocks, but I am not ready just to jump in just yet (I am a relatively young investor, but have been playing around with stocks for 4 years on and off). The problem I often find is that the stock market is often too overvalued to play Ben Graham type strategy/ PE/B, so I would like to expand my knowledge of investing so I can invest in any market and still find value. After reading Jim Rogers, I was really interested in commodities as an alternative to stocks, but I like to play really conservative (generally). Thank you for your insight. If you don't mind, I would like to add you as a friend, since you seem quite above average in the strategy department.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ed94c996ea2eda52c332ab82b4541cd4", "text": "I really like Value Investing by Bruce Greenwald. It's not a textbook so you can probably pick it up for about $20. While it is dense, I think with some patience you might be able to understand it at the undergrad level. The process outlined in the VI book is very different from the conventional corp finance way of valuing a company. A typical corp finance model would probably have you model cash flows 5 or 10 years out and then assume some sort of terminal growth. The VI book argues that it's nearly impossible to predict things that far out accurately so build your valuation on what we know. Start with the balance sheet. Then look at this year's earnings. Is that sustainable? This is a simplification of course but I describe it only so you can get the idea. I think it's definitely a worthwhile read.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4fb93947461cf2614b37f4ea50bbec9b", "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.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0dcb7260f7b813b016081465372c8589", "text": "Berkshire Hathaway's earnings for the last reported quarter were $6.395 billion, which works out to $822 in profit per second, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. This is directly the result of about 50 years of carefully applying the value investing philosophy.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "6709174d7e2f97d95f26f15572e9648b", "text": "Founder makes available 100% equity, but uses a reasonable amount of the proceeds to pay him/herself a salary (or wage) and from that salary invests in the same initial offering to acquire shares for him/herself. I see several problems. What is a reasonable salary? Also, this leaves the door open to the following scam: Founders say that they are going to follow this plan. However, instead of buying shares, they simply quit after being paid the salary. They use knowledge gained from this business to start a competitor. Investors are left holding an empty company. Tax consequences. The founder would pay income tax on the salary. By contrast, if the founder instead sells shares, that would be capital gains tax, which is lower in many countries (e.g. the United States). Why would I want to invest in a business where the founders don't believe in it enough to take a significant equity stake? Consider the Amazon.com example. Jeff Bezos makes a minimal salary, around $80,000 a year, less than many of his employees. But he has a substantial ownership position. If the company doesn't make money, he won't. Would investors really value the stocks with a P/E of 232.10 in 2016 if they didn't trust him to make the right long term decisions? It's also worth noting that most initial public offerings (IPOs) are not made when the founder is the only employee. A single employee company instead looks for private investors, often called angel investors. Companies generally don't go public until they are established in some way, often making money. Negotiating with angel investors is different from negotiating with the public. They can personally review the books and once invested tend to have input on how the money is spent. In other words, this is mostly solving the wrong problem if you talk about IPOs. This might make more sense with a crowdfunded venture, as that replaces a few angel investors with many individuals. But most crowdfunded ventures tend to approach things from the opposite direction. Instead of looking for investors, they look for customers. If they offer a useful product, they will get customers. If not, they never get the money. Beyond all this, if a founder is only going to get a fair salary some of the time, then why put in any sweat equity? This works fine if the company looks valuable after a year. What if it doesn't? The founder is out a year of sweat equity and has nothing in return. That happens now too, but the possibility of the big return offsets it. You're taking out the big return. I don't think that this is good for either founders or investors. The founder trades a potentially good or even great return for a mediocre return. The investors trade a situation where both they and the founder benefit from a successful company to one where they benefit a lot more than the founder. That's not good for either side.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ef34014ce4364ee818940477c94f3703", "text": "Specifically I was wondering, how can the founder determine an appropriate valuation and distribution of shares; ie- the amount of equity to make available for public vs how much to reserve for him/herself. This is an art more than science. If markets believe it to be worth x; one will get. This is not a direct correlation of the revenue a start up makes. It is more an estimated revenue it would make in some point in time in future. There are investment firms that can size up the opportunity and advise; however it is based on their experience and may not always be true reflection of value.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "b8da10c8337c08554e4582761a771d98", "text": "underwriters aren't subject to lock-up. They actually don't hold anything. They oversell at IPO, with their short position covered by the green shoe (an option from the company). If the deal does well, the underwriters exercise the green shoe to cover their short. If the deal runs into some pressure, they step in to support the price by buying back shares... thereby covering their short. So they are doing price support in the early days of a deal, but it is almost always paid for by the company granting them an option. But the underwriters aren't taking stock. Correct that typically all insiders and existing investors are expected to sign-up a lock-up.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "924ec97e56ea4c56464f722c7914e103", "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!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "abe1bdfd75ae3be1ffe8588abac21765", "text": "This situation sounds better than most, the company it seems likely to be profitable in the future. As such it is a good candidate to have a successful IPO. With that your stock options are likely to be worth something. How much of that is your share is likely to be very small. The workers that have been their since the beginning, the venture capitalist, and the founders will make the majority of profits from an IPO or sale. Since you and others hired at a similar time as you are assuming almost no risk it is fair that your share of the take is small. Despite being 1/130 employees expect your share of the profits to be much smaller than .77%. How about we go with .01%? Lets also assume that they go public in 2.5 years and that revenues during that time continue to increase by about 25M/year. Profit margins remains the same. So revenues to 112M, profits to 22.5M. Typically the goal for business is to pay no more than 5 times profits, that could be supplanted by other factors, but let's assume that figure. So about 112M from the IPO. So .01% of that is about 11K. That feels about right. Keep in mind there would be underwriting fees, and also I would discount that figure for things that could go wrong. I'd be at about 5K. That would be my expected value figure, 5K. I'd also understand that there is a very small likelihood that I receive that amount. The value received is more likely to be zero, or enough to buy a Ferarri. There might also be some value in getting to know these people. If this fails will their next venture be a success. In my own life, I went to work for a company that looked great on paper that just turned out to be a bust. Great concept, horrible management, and within a couple of years of being hired, the company went bust. I worked like a dog for nothing.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f5f20c9dfd3239e234d66385fb395d15", "text": "What I think was being asked (and so this is how I interpreted it) is not the transition from public to private, but a corporation itself buying all its shares back, and as a result having no shareholders. In this case we could envision that all outstanding shares would be become treasury stock. My argument was that this would never happen in a practical setting. Obviously, if you interpret the question differently, for instance to be about all the shares of firm being purchased by someone else (as in a private equity buyout), you get very different answers about practicality. So I'm not disagreeing with you at all, I just read the question differently.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fe39007b6afce2e43176aa30787fb6a6", "text": "Yes, that is correct. There is no limit. An initial public offering of common stock by a company means that these shares remain outstanding for as long as the company wishes. The exceptions are through corporate actions, most commonly either", "title": "" }, { "docid": "19f18ebdd0d55ba406566aa94f714891", "text": "You can either borrow money... credit card, line of credit, re-finance your home, home equity line of credit, loan, mortgage, etc. Or you have other invest in your company as equity. They will contribute $X to get Y% of your company and get Z% of the profits. Note amount of profits does not necessarily have to equate to percentage owned. This makes sense if they are a passive investor, where they just come up with the money and you do all the work. Also voting rights in a company does not have to equate to percentage owned either. You can also have a combination of equity and debt. If you have investors, you would need to figure out whether the investor will personally guarantee the debt of your company - recourse vs non-recourse. If they have more risk, they will want more of a return. One last way to do it is crowdfunding, similar to what people do on Kickstarter. Supporters/customers come up with the money, then you deliver the product. Consulting practices do something similar with the concept of retainers. Best of luck.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f69471fbc64767b814c43447c1a02d6f", "text": "There are not necessarily large shareholders, maybe every other Joe Schmoe owns 3 or 5 shares; and many shares might be inside investment funds. If you are looking for voting rights, typically, the banks/investment companies that host the accounts of the individual shareholders/fund owners have the collective voting rights, so the Fidelity's and Vanguard's of the world will be the main and deciding voters. That is very common.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c526e569e2ae563e14b933f146c30364", "text": "\"Companies normally do not give you X% of shares, but in effect give you a fixed \"\"N\"\" number of shares. The \"\"N\"\" may translate initially to X%, but this can go down. If say we began with 100 shares, A holding 50 shares and B holding 50 shares. As the startup grows, there is need for more money. Create 50 more shares and sell it at an arranged price to investor C. Now the percentage of each investor is 33.33%. The money that comes in will go to the company and not to A & B. From here on, A & C together can decide to slowly cut out B by, for example: After any of the above the % of shares held by B would definitely go down.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "41d5bfb7a9d47b8e32ca6736772ca243", "text": "\"Yes and no. There are different classes of shares - Some have voting rights, some *don't*. Some take precedence over others in a bankruptcy. Some get larger dividends. \"\"Common\"\" isn't really a useful description of your stake in the company. You *do* have a \"\"stake\"\" in the company, but not all shares are equal.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "33e1168b647035deb672a2797e3a6afe", "text": "\"Your company actually will most likely use some sort of options pricing model, either a binomial tree or black-scholes to determine the value for their accounting and, subsequently, for their issuance and realization. First, market value of equity will be determined. Given you're private (although \"\"pre-IPO could mean public tomorrow,\"\"), this will likely revolve around a DCF and/or market approaches. Equity value will then be compared to a cap table to create an equity waterfall, where the different classes of stock and the different options will be valued along tranches. Keep in mind there might be liquidation preferences that would make options essentially further out of the money. As such, your formulae above do not quite work. However, as an employee, it might be difficult to determine the necessary inputs to determine value. To estimate it, however, look for three key pieces of information: 1. Current equity value 2. Option strike price 3. Maturity for Options If the strike is close to the current equity value, and the maturity is long enough, and you expect the company to grow, then it would look like the options have more value than not. Equity value can be derived from enterprise value, or by directly determining it via a DCF or guideline multiples. Reliable forecasts should come from looking at the industry, listening to what management is saying, and then your own information as an insider.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a2dd5540db63905132ff6419c895d1df", "text": "\"Because I'll be investing time, effort, energy and take some initial risks I would like to receive more shares (more than just purely financial contribution would suggest) I don't see money in that list. How much money will you be contributing to your own project? Mutual understanding, focusing on big image, rather that covering each and every edge case. These kinds of one page agreements are an excellent \"\"idea\"\" and they work just fine when everyone is happy and everything is working well; they are an utter nightmare if anything goes sideways. Coincidently, the reason you write anything down at all is to have everyone agree on the same big picture at the same time. People's memory of the original big picture gets fuzzy when their money might not come back to them. You don't need to cover all edge cases, but you need to cover obvious negative outcomes. What if you can't find a renter? What if you're late paying someone back? What if your vendor \"\"repairs\"\" something incorrectly? What if you forget to get a permit and the vendor needs to come back to tear it all apart and redo the work? What if your project needs more money, who is required to contribute, who has the option to contribute, who gets diluted? Who is doing the work of managing the project, how much is that person getting paid, how is that person's pay determined, how can it be adjusted? Is any work expected from any other investor, on what terms, who decides the terms? What if you get an offer to buy the building, who decides to sell, etc and so forth and on and on and on... You write down an agreement so everyone's understanding of the agreement is recorded. You write down what will happen in XYZ event so you don't argue about what you all should do when that event does ultimately occur. You take as much equity as your other investors will allow you to have, and you give them as much as required to get their money. Understand that the more cooks there are in the kitchen the more difficult it is to act on a problem when one arises; when not if. Your ego-stroking play to \"\"open source crowd-sourced wisdom\"\" is nothing more than a silly request for vague advice at no cost. Starting a project on trust, transparency and integrity is naive. This is about money. Why on earth should anyone trust you with their money if you won't do the most basic step of stewardship and spend a couple hundred pounds to talk to a local professional about organizing your first ever project. To answer your question directly, the first precaution you should take is not taking money from any of your friends or family.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a3721fd666e6ea8920304e2b973bef1c", "text": "\"The part that I find confusing is the loan/stock hybridization. Why would the investor be entitled to a 30% share if he's also expecting to be getting paid back in full? This is the part that's making me scratch my head. I can understand giving equity and buying out later. I can understand giving equity with no expectation of loan repayment. I can understand loan repayment without equity. I can even understand collateralizing the loan with equity. I can not understand how \"\"zeroing out\"\" the loan still leaves him with a claim on 30% of the equity. Would this be more of a good will gesture as a way to thank the investor for taking a chance? Please forgive any naivety in my questions.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9b945382c83fff7377066083bd024669", "text": "Isn't that uncommon in small business financing/investing. You can structure your capital anyway you wish (relatively speaking). It starts as an equity investment with an option for the founder to buy back equity. Then there is an 8% dividend payment that takes a similar form to preferred stock.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a040eda3ed2664e5f7bbb8bd1ddbf82c", "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.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "934ef0bc0a19ea24509fa1f5c7af0b94", "text": "In my original question, I was wondering if there was a mathematical convention to help in deciding on whether an equity offering OR debt offering would be a better choice. I should have clarified better in the question, I used Vs. which may have made it unclear.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "b2a9adcdbf100c4a97dae74f98c936b8", "text": "You recognize expense when you sell the hot dog. When you pay for the buns you have inventory, which is an asset. When you sell the hot dog - you have cost of goods sold, which is the expense. Expense principle says that you recognize expense when you use the product. You use the buns when you actually sell the hot dog, not before. The matching principle is also honored because you recognize expense of the buns at the time of recognizing revenue of the hot dog.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "b30bd7a9465bf07e15893e3617051654", "text": "\"I am doing an assignment for a finance class, and I am writing a recommendation for a specific capital structure. One of the concerns brought up by the \"\"board of directors\"\" was interest coverage, so in my addressing that topic in my report, I want to compare to competitors. The interest coverage ratio under this capital structure that I'm choosing is 11.8 and the two competitors we are given information on are Company A (who has an interest coverage ratio of 6.67) and Company B (who has an interest coverage ratio of 11.25). It seems good, but my concern is that I may be missing something, as Company A is similar in size (in terms of sales) to the company I am writing a report for while Company B has ~50 times more sales than the company I am writing a report for. Advice, things to consider as I move forward?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9f21c3868a05636a714b94a393a6072d", "text": "\"There is no hard and fast rule. If there was, people could cleverly arrange to make money just often enough to stay on the \"\"ok\"\" side. It's a judgement call by the CRA and it probably starts with an audit, and depends on the reasons for the loss. Simple example: your business is selling your time at X an hour and you have expenses that you will cover if you sell Y hours a year, where Y is a lot less than the 2000 hours we have to sell each year. Maybe 300. And you had a big contract but it fell through and though you tried and tried you couldn't get another contract. This will probably be considered a reasonable loss. Another example: your business is selling art or antiques, most of which are kept in your house where you can look at them every day and enjoy them. Your expenses include lots of flights to places where these art or antiques come from, or perhaps are inspired by, along with hotel and restaurant costs, and you would need to sell your entire inventory every year just to cover these expenses, yet you only sell one or two pieces a year (or none) and there's no indication that you're particularly trying to sell more than that. This will probably be considered an unreasonable loss, and if the situation persists for many years in a row, the expenses may end up being disallowed. Side businesses often lose money at first. In fact, once they stop losing money they stop being side businesses. If you have spin up costs like buying hardware, developing software, or acquiring inventory, and you can show how long those extra costs can be expected to last, your expenses are less likely to be disallowed. That's the issue, not how many years in a row the loss occurred. This archived CRA document http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/E/pub/tp/it364/it364-e.html gives examples of startup expenses that were allowed in years that didn't have revenue, never mind profit.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a4fe4886ea6863bd792a7277924d2b8b", "text": "Purchase accounting requires that you mark assets, including PP&amp;E to fair value. So let's say you bought a machine 5 years ago for $1,000 - you might have depreciated it to $250 on your balance sheet but it might actually be worth $900.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6f35493317b0fa9767a0827ede4a4505", "text": "I appreciate it. I didn't operate under selling the asset year five but other than that I followed this example. I appreciate the help. These assignments are just poorly laid out. Financial management also plays on different calculation interactions so it is difficult for me to easily identify the intent at times. Thanks again.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "294f7578f55527d349d6950e9be9755b", "text": "This is a wonderful comprehensive answer as it relates to transferring goods, and evaluating profitability. I would like to add to your post and comment about a few other costs that are transferred. First though, I disagree with your comment about transfer pricing being about opportunity cost. I think transfer pricing is first and primarily about the matching principal. Properly matching expenses incurred to the revenues generated from those expenditures, or in the case of period expenses, to those entities that received a benefit in the proper period. I don't work in tax, so I'm by no means an expert in this subject, but I am a CPA and I feel I have a solid understanding of the subject. Some additional items going through TP might be: interest, shared corporate services, the amortization of intellectual property, technology fees, and depreciation charges. This is not a comprehensive list, and please don't take it as such. None of these need apply to every company, and certain industries and even individual companies will have exceptions. For example, for various reasons, a multi-national conglomerate may choose to maintain separate treasury functions for it's vastly different businesses, so you may not see much interest TP. Interest is pretty straight forward, and is the interest a company is paying on a debt. Not all interest is transferable, but a classic example might be borrowed funds used for an acquisition. The interest cost associated with that should be transferred in part back to the original entity. Short term borrowing costs used for operating capital is another classic example. Shared corporate services are centralized functions like a legal department, accounting department, executive offices, and the like. This can also be an IT department or in the instance of an international website (maybe google), an operations team monitoring the server loads and up-times. IP could just be patents that have definite lives that a number of businesses are benefiting from. IP is a bit of a mess to get into for various reasons and I'm trying to stay focused in this post. Some reasons for complexity include: the valuation, life of the asset, benefit of use, is the entity even really using it?, etc. I would imagine this is where companies get away with A LOT. Technology fees can be software licenses (Windows ain't free). Depreciation can be capitalized proprietary software. I'm running out of gas and wanted to comment about OP's question. I don't think SLA's and Internal billing services are a matter of directly increasing efficiency, more a matter of not creating inefficiencies. Going anecdotal, anywhere I've worked, the best person to do the job has been whoever's closest to the work. It wouldn't make much sense to me to have accounting gather up internal support during the VERY time sensitive month-end close for something like one division's trade magazine that another division placed an ad in. On the other hand, I think the allocation of copy expenses on an activity basis is an absolute waste of time. It all depends on the specific transaction in question. Great post bctich. Don't mean to detract, just looking to help others understand.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6db8ff167a2027d4fa6c4eb9c132fc41", "text": "\"I think the key concept here is future value. The NAV is essentially a book-keeping exercise- you add up all the assets and remove all the liabilities. For a public company this is spelled out in the balance sheet, and is generally listed at the bottom. I pulled a recent one from Cisco Systems (because I used to work there and know the numbers ;-) and you can see it here: roughly $56 billion... https://finance.yahoo.com/q/bs?s=CSCO+Balance+Sheet&annual Another way to think about it: In theory (and we know about this, right?) the NAV is what you would get if you liquidated the company instantaneously. A definition I like to use for market cap is \"\"the current assets, plus the perceived present value of all future earnings for the company\"\"... so let's dissect that a little. The term \"\"present value\"\" is really important, because a million dollars today is worth more than a million dollars next year. A company expected to make a lot of money soon will be worth more (i.e. a higher market cap) than a company expected to make the same amount of money, but later. The \"\"all future earnings\"\" part is exactly what it sounds like. So again, following our cisco example, the current market cap is ~142 billion, which means that \"\"the market\"\" thinks they will earn about $85 billion over the life of the company (in present day dollars).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7aec2e5d1480a09c5e8c8671d32c6e8d", "text": "\"A bit strange but okay. The way I would think about this is again that you need to determine for what purpose you're computing this, in much the same way you would if you were to build out the model. The IPO valuation is not going to be relevant to the accretion/dilution analysis unless you're trying to determine whether the transaction was net accretive at exit. But that's a weird analysis to do. For longer holding periods like that you're more likely to look at IRR, not EPS. EPS is something investors look at over the short to medium term to get a sense of whether the company is making good acquisition decisions. And to do that short-to-medium term analysis, they look at earnings. Damodaran would say this is a shitty way of looking at things and that you should probably be looking at some measure of ROIC instead, and I tend to agree, but I don't get paid to think like an investor, I get paid to sell shit to them (if only in indirect fashion). The short answer to your question is that no, you should not incorporate what you are calling liquidation value when determining accretion/dilution, but only because the market typically computes accretion/dilution on a 3-year basis tops. I've never put together a book or seen a press release in my admittedly short time in finance that says \"\"the transaction is estimated to be X% accretive within 4 years\"\" - that just seems like an absurd timeline. Final point is just that from an accounting perspective, a gain on a sale of an asset is not going to get booked in either EBITDA or OCF, so just mechanically there's no way for the IPO value to flow into your accretion/dilution analysis there, even if you are looking at EBITDA/shares. You could figure the gain on sale into some kind of adjusted EBITDA/shares version of EPS, but this is neither something I've ever seen nor something that really makes sense in the context of using EPS as a standardized metric across the market. Typically we take OUT non-recurring shit in EPS, we don't add it in. Adding something like this in would be much more appropriate to measuring the success of an acquisition/investing vehicle like a private equity fund, not a standalone operating company that reports operational earnings in addition to cash flow from investing. And as I suggest above, that's an analysis for which the IRR metric is more ideally situated. And just a semantic thing - we typically wouldn't call the exit value a \"\"liquidation value\"\". That term is usually reserved for dissolution of a corporate entity and selling off its physical or intangible assets in piecemeal fashion (i.e. not accounting for operational synergies across the business). IPO value is actually just going to be a measure of market value of equity.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "27eac77085ef8132f3750af1c9f86670", "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?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "50f1ca05abaa0bcb89d9ef694f692a8d", "text": "Broadly, there's a bunch of stuff you need to be accounting for that's not reflected in the above, which will impact the A/D profile of an acquisition: * Consideration paid (all cash on substantially the same terms is going to be more accretive than an all-stock transaction...because in the latter, your denominator is much bigger) * Shares outstanding (including repurchases, in-kind dividends and option exercise) * Financing / interest expense * Upside / base / downside case for all of your assumptions - best to have a toggle based on a CHOOSE function that will allow the user to easily toggle between these I'm not sure what EBITDA is getting you. EPS accretion/dilution typically looks at earnings, but you could also look at Cash EPS A/D which measures OCF/shares outstanding. The point is, this really depends on how back of the envelope you want the A/D computation to be. At a minimum, you need an earnings schedule projected over the next 2-3 years, and you need a schedule reflecting outstanding shares over the same time period. Your earnings buildout can have varying degrees of granularity. You can project cost synergies over the forecast period, which most obviously is going to affect your earnings, but you can also drill down further. Financing, transaction fees, etc. Your writeups and writedowns from your B/S combination may result in certain deferred tax items that will affect your bottom line over the forecast period. Your share schedule can also have varying degrees of complexity. One way to do it is to just presume that the company will not issue any more shares, and will not repurchase any shares, and that there will be no options exercised, over the forecast period. This is a bad series of assumptions. It is likely that as options vest, if in the money, they will be exercised, resulting in dilution for existing shareholders. It is also likely that certain preferred shareholders and optionholders are going to experience adjustments to the conversion prices based on antidilution provisions in their securities. These may be but are not always disclosed in the 10K. Last point - models are tools. What are you trying to build an accretion/dilution model for? This will affect and determine the degree of granularity you'll want to go into.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9d77881dc3d8a425eeea4703c169e0b3", "text": "\"First, don't use Yahoo's mangling of the XBRL data to do financial analysis. Get it from the horse's mouth: http://www.sec.gov/edgar/searchedgar/companysearch.html Search for Facebook, select the latest 10-Q, and look at the income statement on pg. 6 (helpfully linked in the table of contents). This is what humans do. When you do this, you see that Yahoo omitted FB's (admittedly trivial) interest expense. I've seen much worse errors. If you're trying to scrape Yahoo... well do what you must. You'll do better getting the XBRL data straight from EDGAR and mangling it yourself, but there's a learning curve, and if you're trying to compare lots of companies there's a problem of mapping everybody to a common chart of accounts. Second, assuming you're not using FCF as a valuation metric (which has got some problems)... you don't want to exclude interest expense from the calculation of free cash flow. This becomes significant for heavily indebted firms. You might as well just start from net income and adjust from there... which, as it happens, is exactly the approach taken by the normal \"\"indirect\"\" form of the statement of cash flows. That's what this statement is for. Essentially you want to take cash flow from operations and subtract capital expenditures (from the cash flow from investments section). It's not an encouraging sign that Yahoo's lines on the cash flow statement don't sum to the totals. As far as definitions go... working capital is not assets - liabilities, it is current assets - current liabilities. Furthermore, you want to calculate changes in working capital, i.e. the difference in net current assets from the previous quarter. What you're doing here is subtracting the company's accumulated equity capital from a single quarter's operating results, which is why you're getting an insane result that in no way resembles what appears in the statement of cash flows. Also you seem to be using the numbers for the wrong quarter - 2014q4 instead of 2015q3. I can't figure out where you're getting your depreciation number from, but the statement of cash flows shows they booked $486M in depreciation for 2015q3; your number is high. FB doesn't have negative FCF.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d938cfa19603cd76c60ccc1bc2fa74d2", "text": "I was looking for ideas on what the usual figures are in such positions. Something like market value, or other terms such as changing slab percentages in compensation. Not sure what the best practices are in this situation. Not sure what you are referring to.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d0fa19bd56f0718d8f95e7384ad26fc3", "text": "Expensing a transfer of funds is incorrect. That will affect the Profit/Loss (Income) statement when you transfer it out and back in, which you do not want, at least for the principle. The interest should be recorded as a interest income. The general way to account for transferring money is to credit the originating account, and debit the destination account. This will only affect the balance sheet accounts. For example: Transferring (buying) 10,000 worth of fix term bank deposits Interest is paid: The bank deposit reaches maturity, so the principle is returned, with the final interest payment. The accounts Checking account and Fixed term bank deposit are asset accounts, which show up on the balance sheet. The Interest income is an income account, which will show up in the income statement. This is how a fixed term/CD is usually recorded. In certain cases, where the business must follow an accounting standard, this may very well be insufficient, but this situation will be unlikely if it's a small private sports club. Having said that, double check to make sure what you've stated is indeed correct, and look back into the past entries to see how it was dealt with before, especially since you said this bookkeeping job is temporary. I would strongly advise against changing non-recent entries, even if they are incorrect. For the insurance payments, that would depend on how the damaged assets were accounted for. It's a little hard to say without more detail-- the extent of the damage, how the diminished value was accounted for in the books, the cost of repair materials, etc.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bf0540111a2051185227f72005547c32", "text": "\"Generally if you are using FIFO (first in, first out) accounting, you will need to match the transactions based on the number of shares. In your example, at the beginning of day 6, you had two lots of shares, 100 @ 50 and 10 @ 52. On that day you sold 50 shares, and using FIFO, you sold 50 shares of the first lot. This leaves you with 50 @ 50 and 10 @ 52, and a taxable capital gain on the 50 shares you sold. Note that commissions incurred buying the shares increase your basis, and commissions incurred selling the shares decrease your proceeds. So if you spent $10 per trade, your basis on the 100 @ 50 lot was $5010, and the proceeds on your 50 @ 60 sale were $2990. In this example you sold half of the lot, so your basis for the sale was half of $5010 or $2505, so your capital gain is $2990 - 2505 = $485. The sales you describe are also \"\"wash sales\"\", in that you sold stock and bought back an equivalent stock within 30 days. Generally this is only relevant if one of the sales was at a loss but you will need to account for this in your code. You can look up the definition of wash sale, it starts to get complex. If you are writing code to handle this in any generic situation you will also have to handle stock splits, spin-offs, mergers, etc. which change the number of shares you own and their cost basis. I have implemented this myself and I have written about 25-30 custom routines, one for each kind of transaction that I've encountered. The structure of these deals is limited only by the imagination of investment bankers so I think it is impossible to write a single generic algorithm that handles them all, instead I have a framework that I update each quarter as new transactions occur.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f469aad776f005ed531a025b282f05ad", "text": "This is great! I'm not a CPA, but work in finance. As such, my course/professional work is focused more on the economic and profitability aspects of transfer pricing. As you might imagine, it tended to analyze corporate strategy decisions under various cost allocation models, which you thoroughly discuss. I would agree with the statement that it is based on the matching principle but would like to add that transfer pricing is interesting as it falls under several fields: accounting, finance, and economics. Fundamentally it is based on the matching principal, but it's real world applications are based on all three (it's often used to determine divisional and even individual sales peoples profitability; as is the case with bank related funds transfer pricing on stuff like time deposits). In this case, the correct accounting principal allows you to, when done properly, better understand the economics, strategy, and operations of an organization. In effect, when done correctly, it provides transparency for strategic decision making to executives. As I said, since my coursework tended to focus more on that aspect, I definitely have a natural tendency towards it. This is an amazing explanation (esp. about interest on M&amp;A bridge loans, I get that) of the more detailed stuff! Truthfully, I'm not as familiar with it and was just trying to show more of the conceptual than nitty-gritty. Thanks for the reply!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c0744b5252ccc248969654a5077ebc8c", "text": "&gt; If the buyside was showing demand, what's wrong with HFT for reacting with supply? In my example, HFT isn't actually adding supply/liquidity. They're just grabbing it and flipping it. &gt; The example you gave is akin to me going from car dealership to car dealership yelling loudly about what car I want and the price I'd like it at - would you be upset if someone heard you and decided to sell their car to you later down the line? Not the same. The equivalent would be me yelling about wanting to buy a Porsche 911, and you buying them all before I can finish my own purchase, then offering to resell them to me at a higher price. &gt;In this case, the buy side trader is being stupid. Maybe - certainly if all this could be eliminated by avoiding market orders. This is a major critique many people have with Brad K. Instead of serially going from exchange to exchange, he could have sent orders to all exchanges at the same time (parallel!) and likely received much better prices. He did do this at his time at RBC - sent orders to all exchanges at once. The result would be apparently liquidity (asks at the market) disappearing and his orders getting filled at higher prices. &gt;In my opinion, the HFT player here is simply facilitating price discovery by reacting to demand - as a market maker that's his job. I think that's a misinterpretation of what these particular HFTs are doing. &gt;Here's a good article. Let me know what you think. Interesting. It certainly goes against a lot of what Lewis wrote. And I suppose that's the problem... very few of us are actually qualified to say what is actually true. I know little about market structure and, as I said, have no involvement in high liquidity stocks. The fund managers next door to me also trade pretty illiquid stuff that I strongly doubt any HFT ever touches, and they're value investors anyway, not arb HFs or something.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "5d145ce5ddae533cabaaef765995e0b0", "text": "\"This is actually a fairly hard question to answer well as much of the currency trading that is done in financial markets is actually done directly with banks and other financial institutions instead of on a centralized market and the banks are understandably not always excited to part with information on how exactly they do their business. Other methods of currency exchange have much, much less volume though so it is important to understand the trading through markets as best as possible. Some banks do give information on how much is traded so surveys can give a reasonable indication of relative volume by currency. Note the U.S. Dollar is by far the largest volume of currency traded partially because people often covert one currency to another in the markets by trading \"\"through\"\" the Dollar. Wikipedia has a good explanation and a nicely formatted table of information as well.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "2011683a7282591b7487b02e7d336fa2", "text": "I think it depends where you live in the world, but I guess the most common would be: Major Equity Indices I would say major currency exchange rate: And have a look at the Libors for USD and EUR. I guess the intent of the question is more to see how implicated you are in the daily market analysis, not really to see if you managed to learn everything by heart in the morning.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9440f6a0c8c21dafac732d0fc850d408", "text": "It depends on the currency pair since it is much harder to move a liquid market like Fiber (EURUSD) or Cable (GBPUSD) than it is to move illiquid markets such as USDTRY, however, it will mostly be big banks and big hedge funds adjusting their positions or speculating (not just on the currency or market making but also speculating in foreign instruments). I once was involved in a one-off USD 56 million FX trade without which the hedge fund could not trade as its subscriptions were in a different currency to the fund currency. Although it was big by their standards it was small compared with the volumes we expected from other clients. Governments and big companies who need to pay costs in a foreign currency or receive income in one will also do this but less frequently and will almost always do this through a nominated bank (in the case of large firms). Because they need the foreign currency immediately; if you've ever tried to pay a bill in the US denominated in Dollars using Euros you'll know that they aren't widely accepted. So if I need to pay a large bill to a supplier in Dollars and all I have is Euros I may move the market. Similarly if I am trying to buy a large number of shares in a US company and all I have is Euros I'll lose the opportunity.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d28ff1b1e9a532740365b921dbc14909", "text": "That's a very interesting article, and something that I hadn't considered, but I have a hard time believing that the value of the dollar is really 1/4 of what it was just 15 years ago. Ounces of gold don't appreciate in ounces of gold, and you can't buy anything with them. Like it or now, gold isn't used as a currency, so its price at this time is primarily dictated by how much more that people expect its value to rise in USD.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "73f0f5884654654b0658b3caef2f0620", "text": "You will most likely not be able to avoid some form of format conversion, regardless of which data you use since there is, afaik, no standard for this data and everyone exports it differently. One viable option would be, like you said yourself, using the free data provided by Dukascopy. Please take into consideration that those are spot currency rates and will most likely not represent the rate at which physical and business-related exchange would have happened at this time.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a9cc63c7170331548e0b4509671070cd", "text": "Venezuela is a command economy, and one that isn't doing terribly well right now, with rampant inflation in the several hundred percent range. As such, they've tried to limit or eliminate exchanges between their currency and foreign currencies. Currently, they allow a limited amount of exchange at fixed rates (according to a Bloomberg article, those vary between 6.3, 13.5, and 200) for certain purchases, and then otherwise disallow exchange between the currencies. However, there is a black market (illegal in Venezuela, but legal in the US) which allows the price to float, and is much higher - 800 or so according to that article from last year. A recent Valuewalk article lists the black market rate at closer to 900, and slightly different official rates. It's worth a read as it explains the different official rates in detail: Currently there are four exchange rates: First is the official one, called CENCOEX, and which charges 6.30 bolivars to the dollar. It is only intended for the importation of food and medicine. The next two exchange rates are SICAD I (12 bolivars per dollar) and SICAD 2 (50 bolivars per dollar); they assign dollars to enterprises that import all other types of goods. Because of the fact that US dollars are limited, coupons are auctioned only sporadically; usually weekly in the case of SICAD 1 and daily for SICAD 2. However, due to the economic crisis, no dollars have been allocated for these foreign exchange transactions and there hasn’t been an auction since August 18, 2015. As of November 2015, the Venezuelan government held only $16 billion in foreign exchange reserves, the lowest level in over ten years, and an amount that will dry up completely in four years time at the current rate of depletion. The last and newest exchange rate is the SIMADI, currently at 200 bolivars per dollar. This rate is reserved for the purchase and sale of foreign currency to individuals and businesses.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ce59afabd0cf651c573516b3ae52fde4", "text": "\"Finding statistics is exceedingly hard, because the majority of traders lose money. That is, not only they don't \"\"beat the markets\"\", not only they don't \"\"beat the benchmark\"\" (S&P 500 being used a lot as reference): they just lose money. Finding exact numbers, quality statistics and so on is very difficult. Finding recent ones, is almost impossible. With enormous effort I have found two references that might help make an idea. One is very recent, Forex \"\"centered\"\" and has been prepared by a large finance group for the the Europen Central Bank (ECB). It's available on their website, at an obscure download location. The document is stated to be confidential, but its download location has been disclosed to the public by CNBC. I can't post CNBC's link because I have just joined this Stack Exchange portal so I don't have enough reputation. You can find it by looking for their article about FXCM Forex broker debacle due to the Swiss Central Bank removing the EUR/CHF peg at 1.20. The second is a 2009-ish paper about Taiwanese retail traders profitability statistics published by Oxford University Press and talks about stocks. Both documents focus on retail traders. I strongly suggest you to immediately save those documents because they tend to disappear after a while. We had a fantastic and complete statistics report made by a group of German Banks in 2011... they pulled it off in 2012.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "52e41eaf6ab2a990bfe7c69d2d688a11", "text": "There are lots of good answers on here already. There are actually lots of answers for this question. Lots. I have years of experience on the exchange feed side and there are hundreds and thousands of variables. All of these variables are funneled into systems owned by large financial institutions (I used to manage these - and only a few companies in the world do this so not hard to guess who I work for). Their computers then make trades based on all of these variables and equations. There are variables as whacky as how many times was a company mentioned in an aggregate news feed down to your basic company financials. But if there is a way to measure a company (or to just guess) there is an equation for it plugged into a super computer at a big bank. Now there are two important factors on why you see this mad dash in the morning: Now most of the rest of the day is also automated trades but by the time you are an hour into market open the computers for the most part have fulfilled their calendar buys. Everyone else's answer is right too. There is futures contracts that change, global exchange info changes, options expiring, basic news, whatever but all of these are amplified by the calendar day changing.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d2f7b297afb74669d216bbe219f2ae73", "text": "There are various exchanges around the world that handle spot precious metal trading; for the most part these are also the primary spot foreign exchange markets, like EBS, Thomson Reuters, Currenex (website seems to be down), etc. You can trade on these markets through brokers just like you can trade on stock markets. However, the vast majority of traders on these exchanges do not intend to hold any bullion ownership at the end of the day; they want to buy as much as they sell each day. A minority of traders do intend to hold metal positions for longer periods, but I doubt any of them intend to actually go collect bullion from the exchange. I don't think it's even possible. Really the only way to get bullion is to pay a service fee to a dealer like you mentioned. But on an exchange like the ones above you have to pay three different fees: So in the end you can't even get the spot price on the exchanges where the spot prices are determined. You might even come out ahead by going to a dealer. You should try to find a reputable dealer, and go in knowing the latest trade prices. An honest dealer will have a website showing you the current trade prices, so you know that they expect you to know the prices when you come in. For example, here's a well-known dealer in Chicago that happily shows you the spot prices from KITCO so you can decide whether their service fee is worth it or not.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b093899a640d476dc32d6a2ae1785f4a", "text": "\"In practice, most (maybe all) stock indices are constructed by taking a weighted average of stock prices denominated in a single currency, and so the index implicitly does have that currency - as you suggest, US dollars for the S&P 500. In principle you can buy one \"\"unit\"\" of the S&P 500 for $2,132.98 or whatever by buying an appropriate quantity of each of its constituent stocks. Also, in a more realistic scenario where you buy an index via a tracker fund, you would typically need to buy using the underlying currency of the index and your returns will be relative to that currency - if the index goes up by 10%, your original investment in dollars is up by 10%.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "681a68e3b9bb0ed1f7c21754b288d44c", "text": "On 2012/05/18 at 15:34:00 UTC (11:34:00 EDT) FB was in chaos mode. The most recent public US trade at that moment was at $40.94, but in the next one second (i.e. before the clock hit 15:34:01) there were several dozen trades as low as $40.76 and as high as $41.00. On 2012/05/30 at 17:21:00 UTC (13:21:00 EDT) the most recent public US trade for FB was at $28.28.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6bd58cfcf59df1678bf6560942b4d86c", "text": "No, there is nothing on the sidelines. Currency is an investment. There is no such thing as uninvested wealth. If you had a million in USD at the beginning of 2017, you would currently be out about sixty grand. There is no neutral way to store wealth.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5596b89a7503739bfe1ed3ba97b4b993", "text": "Robert Shiller has an on-line page with links to download some historical data that may be what you want here. Center for the Research in Security Prices would be my suggestion for another resource here.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8bd9e0b185fddf1f7f858aa463ab5619", "text": "The exchange rate between two currencies is simply the price that the most recent market participants were able to agree on, when trading. ie: if the USDCAD is 1.36, it's because the last trade that happened where someone bought 1 USD cost 1.36 CAD. There is no one person/organization which 'decides' the rate between two currencies. The rate moves you see is just the reality of money changing hands as people in various situations trade currencies for various reasons. Just like with stocks or any other market product, foreign exchange rates can fluctuate wildly based on many things. It is very difficult to forecast where rates will go, because the biggest changes in rates can often be unpredictable news events. For example, when Brexit happened, the value of the GBP plummeted relative to other currencies, because the market traders had less faith in the UK economy, and therefore weren't willing to pay as much to buy GBP. See more here: https://money.stackexchange.com/a/76482/44232. There is a very high level of risk in the foreign exchange market; for your sake, don't get involved in any trading that you do not well understand, first.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ce74473919d8ee1c40037ea199392734", "text": "An alternative to paying thousands of dollars for historical prices by the minute: Subscribe to real time data for as low as USD$1.5/month from your broker, then browse the chart.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1fec42beb84e2821dd90cd035446ea8d", "text": "Something like cost = a × avg_spreadb + c × volatilityd × (order_size/avg_volume)e. Different brokers have different formulas, and different trading patterns will have different coefficients.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "e98ac9982dbaa4a37fb7a191aa02b90a", "text": "\"I believe the answer here is no: SIPC protection of customers with multiple accounts is determined by \"\"separate capacity.\"\" Each separate capacity is protected up to $500,000 for securities and cash (including a $250,000 limit for cash only). Accounts held in the same capacity are combined for purposes of the SIPC protection limits. So even having 2 individual accounts - you would only be covered for $500,000/$250,000. You can see more about the type of accounts that would give your more coverage here. Also note: If you own a stock - the record probably exist. Therefore you would not lose your ownership or shares. The SIPC is there to protect the times this does not happen.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "77e655ae1c86c992ba418ffc070b4510", "text": "I use two different brokerages, both well-known. I got a bit spooked during the financial crisis and didn't want to have all my eggs in one basket. The SIPC limits weren't so much a factor. At the time, I was more worried about the hassle of dealing with a Lehman-style meltdown. If one were to fail, the misery of waiting and filing and dealing with SIPC claims would be mitigated by having half of my money in another brokerage. In hindsight, I was perhaps a bit too paranoid. Dealing with two separate brokerages is not much of an inconvenience, though, and it's interesting to see how their web interfaces are slightly different and some things are easier to do with one vs the other. Overall, they're really similar and I can't say there's much advantage (other than my tin-foil hat tendencies) to splitting it up like that.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "77d149c0576756ae84bb1c642dfd213d", "text": "Hey I used to do this for a job. having two separate policies is a bad idea. If you decide you need more life insurance just increase the one you currently have. There are usually discounts for having higher levels of cover. Not only that but if you have multiple policies all you're getting is the task of doing multiple claims and maybe some additional policy fees depending on which companies you're looking at. What did you consider when deciding how much life insurance to take?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3ae55bf06b5b29598b4932492d995608", "text": "\"You should only invest in individual stocks if you truly understand the company's business model and follow its financial reports closely. Even then, individual stocks should represent only the tiniest, most \"\"adventurous\"\" part of your portfolio, as they are a huge risk. A basic investing principle is diversification. If you invest in a variety of financial instruments, then: (a) when some components of your portfolio are doing poorly, others will be doing well. Even in the case of significant economic downturns, when it seems like everything is doing poorly, there will be some investment sectors that are doing relatively better (such as bonds, physical real estate, precious metals). (b) over time, some components of your portfolio will gain more money than others, so every 6 or 12 months you can \"\"rebalance\"\" such that all components once again have the same % of money invested in them as when you began. You can do this either by selling off some of your well-performing assets to purchase more of your poorly-performing assets or (if you don't want to incur a taxable event) by introducing additional money from outside your portfolio. This essentially forces you to \"\"buy (relatively) low, sell (relatively) high\"\". Now, if you accept the above argument for diversification, then you should recognize that owning a handful (or even several handfuls) of individual stocks will not help you achieve diversification. Even if you buy one stock in the energy sector, one in consumer discretionary, one in financials, etc., then you're still massively exposed to the day-to-day fates of those individual companies. And if you invest solely in the US stock market, then when the US has a decline, your whole portfolio will decline. And if you don't buy any bonds, then again when the world has a downturn, your portfolio will decline. And so on ... That's why index mutual funds are so helpful. Someone else has already gone to the trouble of grouping together all the stocks or bonds of a certain \"\"type\"\" (small-cap/large-cap, domestic/foreign, value/growth) so all you have to do is pick the types you want until you feel you have the diversity you need. No more worrying about whether you've picked the \"\"right\"\" company to represent a particular sector. The fewer knobs there are to turn in your portfolio, the less chance there is for mistakes!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f0042193f945e999cc51ee7b75a7469d", "text": "They might not have to open accounts at 12 bank because the coverage does allow multiple accounts at one institution if the accounts are joint accounts. It also treats retirement accounts a separate account. The bigger issue is that most millionaires don't have all their money siting in the bank. They invest in stocks, bonds, government bonds, international funds, and their own companies. Most of these carry risk, but they are diversified. They also can afford advisers to help them manage and protect their assets.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7ef2977f65d04dc67aaf2fec39004624", "text": "I looked a bit at the first 3, .24% expense. There's a direction to not discuss individual investments here, so the rest of my answer will need to lean generic. I see you have 5 funds. I'm surmising it's an attempt at 'diversifying'. I'll ask you - what do these five, when combined, offer that a straight S&P 500 index (or some flavor of extended market) doesn't? I've gone through the exercise of looking at portfolios with a dozen funds and found overlap so great that 2 or 3 funds would have been sufficient. There are S&P funds that are as low as .05%. this difference may not seem like much, but it adds over time. To your last point, I'd consider a Solo 401(k) as you're self employed. One that offers the Roth option if you are in the marginal 15% bracket.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2227a351ed40c57f447a08a9c43166a7", "text": "Yes, it's a good idea to have a separate business account for your business because it makes accounting and bookkeeping that much easier. You can open a business checking account and there will be various options for types of accounts and fees. You may or may not want an overdraft account, for example, or a separate business credit card just so you can more easily separate those expenses from your personal cards. When I started my business, I opened a business checking account and met with my banker every year just to show them how the business was doing and to keep the relationship going. Eventually, when I wanted to establish a business line of credit, it was easier to set up because I they were already familiar with my business, its revenue, and needs for a line of credit. You can set up a solo 401k with your bank, too, and they'll be very happy to do so, but I recommend shopping around for options. I've found that the dedicated investment firms (Schwab, Fidelity, etc.) tend to have better options, fees, and features for investment accounts. Just because a specific bank handles your checking account doesn't mean you need to use that bank for everything. Lastly, I use completely different banks for my personal life and for my business. Maybe I'm paranoid, but I just don't want all my finances in the same place for both privacy reasons and to avoid having all my eggs in the same basket. Just something to consider -- I don't really have a completely sane reason for using completely different banks, but it helps me sleep.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3f906ef9d1c3573b26a480e085683a66", "text": "It varies. Depending on your brokerage, they may charge you per transaction, so the more transactions, the higher the cost. Though this (from what I've seen), is uncommon with many index funds. In terms of how aggressive you want to be with your investment varies on your comfort with risk, timeline of investment and many other factors beyond the scope of this question. The biggest issue you may need to be aware of is if you are looking at mutual funds, they may have minimum investments. Depending on what that minimum investment is set to, you may not be able to split your $5500 into more than one fund. A lot of this comes down to the specific funds in which your are anticipating investing, as well as the service you use to do so (Fidelity, Vanguard, etc). Ultimately, diversification can be a lot safer, but there are logistics to consider. Personally, I began with a target fund (a mutual fund with adjusted risk based on the estimated year of retirement) and add additional mutual funds, stocks and ETFs as time goes on.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "828ffbb47abfeeaadc410c2ed880e123", "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.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e2a054405fb83d902a7776b9cb3ec8a2", "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.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d917fd88122a0370b8a89e8598d25e42", "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.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4478136b0fb1680b61b170be6e8bfb0f", "text": "Restricting the discussion only to Internet hacking: In Option 2 or Option 3, you have to realize that the funds are credited to a specific Registered Bank Account. So the max damage an hacker can do is liquidate your holding. In Option 2, the Banking Internet Login and the Broker Internet Login will be different, For example HDFC Bank and HDFC Securities. In Option 3, if you choose your Bank, then it will be the same Login. If you choose a Non-Bank as provider then there is a different login. The risk is no different to investing in shares. In the end its up to an individual, there is nothing that stops you from opening multiple accounts in option 2 and option 3 and buying the stocks worth particular value. From an overall risk point of view; Option 2 seems best suited as the units are held in a Demat from by a Depository.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e0dc1f3824441ccaae695e29dcc7935f", "text": "I'd roll them all into one account, just for your own convenience. It's a pain to keep track of lots of different accounts, esp. since you need logins/passwords, etc for all of them, and we all have plenty of those. :) Pick a place like Vanguard or Fidelity (for example), where you can find investment options with lower fees, and do the standard rollover. Once all the accounts are rolled into one, you can think about how to invest the stuff. (Some good investments require larger minimums, so if you have several old 401ks, putting them together will give you more options.) Rolling them over is not hard, if you have paperwork from each of the 401ks. You might be able to DIY online, but I found it helpful to call and talk to a person when I did this. You just need account numbers, etc. If you are moving brokerage accounts, you may need to provide paper documents/applications, which might require getting them notarized (I found a notary at my bank, even though the accounts I was moving from and to weren't at my bank), which means you'll need to provide IDs, etc. and get a special crimped seal after the notary witnesses your signature.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e71443710085606292dc745c99c90d19", "text": "Many brokers allow you to transfer shares to another broker without selling them. It depends on what kind of account and who the broker is for what forms you might have to fill out and what other hoops you might have to jump through.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2041307b762fa5e48cadb6e57334b1bc", "text": "You can use interactive brokers. It allows you to have a single account to trade stocks and currencies from several countries.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9f944791fdfd34127ecb910522152663", "text": "You wouldn't want to trade with too small amount of capital - it becomes harder and more expensive to diversify with a small account. Also, the bigger the account the more discounts and special may be offered by your broker (especially if you are a frequent trader). You are also able to trade more often, and have a buffer against a few losses in a row not wiping out your entire account.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "893682084a5cd9dc30d884eb4ca6a379", "text": "\"Usually the new broker will take care of this for you. It can take a couple of weeks. If you are planning to go with Vanguard, you probably want to actually get an account at Vanguard, as Vanguard funds usually aren't \"\"No Transaction Fee\"\" funds with many brokers. If you are planning to invest in ETFs, you'll get more flexibility with a broker.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "08c639825810cbc9f961658068dc39d2", "text": "Is it normal in QuickBooks to have credit card expenses being shows as liabilities? Is there a way I can correct this? If they are expenses they shouldn't be negative liabilities unless you overpaid your credit card by that amount. It sounds like perhaps when you linked the account the credit/debit mapping may have been mixed up. I've not used QB Online, but it looks like you might have to un-link the account, move all the existing transactions to 'excluded' and then link the account again and flip-flop the debit/credit mapping from what it is now. Hopefully there's an easier way. This QB community thread seems to address the same issue.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "b4510cf6016c180b947eab26ae6b837c", "text": "\"Here's a very basic MySQL query I put together that does what I want for income/expense report. Basically it reports the same info as the canned income/expense report, but limits it those income/expenses associated with a particular account (rental property, in my case). My main complaint is the output \"\"report\"\" is pretty ugly. And modifying for a different rental property requires changing the code (I could pass parameters etc). Again, the main \"\"issue\"\" in my mind with GnuCash income/expense report is that there is no filter for which account (rental property) you want income/expenses for, unless you set up account tree so that each rental property has its own defined incomes and expenses (i.e. PropertyA:Expense:Utility:electric). Hopefully someone will point me to a more elegant solution that uses the report generator built into GnuCash. THanks! SELECT a2.account_type , a4.name, a3.name, a2.name, SUM(ROUND(IF(a2.account_type='EXPENSE',- s2.value_num,ABS(s2.value_num))/s2.value_denom,2)) AS amt FROM ( SELECT s1.tx_guid FROM gnucash.accounts AS a1 INNER JOIN gnucash.splits AS s1 ON s1.account_guid = a1.guid WHERE a1.name='Property A' ) AS X INNER JOIN gnucash.splits s2 ON x.tx_guid = s2.tx_guid INNER JOIN gnucash.accounts a2 ON a2.guid=s2.account_guid INNER JOIN gnucash.transactions t ON t.guid=s2.tx_guid LEFT JOIN gnucash.accounts a3 ON a3.guid = a2.parent_guid LEFT JOIN gnucash.accounts a4 ON a4.guid = a3.parent_guid WHERE a2.name <> 'Property A' # get all the accounts associated with tx in Property A account (but not the actual Property A Bank duplicate entries. AND t.post_date BETWEEN CAST('2016-01-01' AS DATE) AND CAST('2016-12-31' AS DATE) GROUP BY a2.account_type ,a4.name, a3.name, a2.name WITH ROLLUP ; And here's the output. Hopefully someone has a better suggested approach!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4455296b4da807afafea1bbac8d675dd", "text": "Lots of business do work and buy products for their customers then invoice them later think of landscapers or IT professionals. They keep track of the work and products on post-its they stick on their desks. Need further help, contact QuickBooks Support team by visit our site - https://www.wizxpert.com/quickbooks-support-help-phone-number/", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4bb4c6f31eaea21b14c16f88eaab362c", "text": "\"One easy way to monitor costs in QuickBooks is to establish sub-bank accounts. For example, you may have an asset account called \"\"State Bank\"\" numbered 11100 (asset, cash and cash equivalents, bank). Convert this to a parent account for a middle school by making subaccounts such as At budget formation, transfer $800 from Operations 11110 to Family Fun Committee 11130. Then write all checks for Family Fun from the Family Fun 11130 subaccount. For fundraising, transfer $0 at budget formation to the X Grade accounts. Do deposit all grade-level receipts into the appropriate grade-level subaccounts and write all checks for the grades from the grade-level subaccounts. The downside to the above is that reconciling the check book each month is slightly more complicated because you will be reconciling one monthly paper bank statement to multiple virtual subaccounts. Also, you must remember to never write a check from the parent \"\"State Bank\"\" 11100, and instead write the checks from the appropriate subaccounts.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4f7d9c6d9bd9a85810ebab48a59bacba", "text": "Because a paying down a liability and thus gaining asset equity is not technically an expense, GnuCash will not include it in any expense reports. However, you can abuse the system a bit to do what you want. The mortgage payment should be divided into principle, interest, and escrow / tax / insurance accounts. For example: A mortgage payment will then be a split transaction that puts money into these accounts from your bank account: For completeness, the escrow account will periodically be used to pay actual expenses, which just moves the expense from escrow into insurance or tax. This is nice so that expenses for a month aren't inflated due to a tax payment being made: Now, this is all fairly typical and results in all but the principle part of the mortgage payment being included in expense reports. The trick then is to duplicate the principle portion in a way that it makes its way into your expenses. One way to do this is to create a principle expense account and also a fictional equity account that provides the funds to pay it: Every time you record a mortgage payment, add a transfer from this equity account into the Principle Payments expense account. This will mess things up at some level, since you're inventing an expense that does not truly exist, but if you're using GnuCash more to monitor monthly cash flow, it causes the Income/Expense report to finally make sense. Example transaction split:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "29badd6f535491305467294f595b3bd6", "text": "\"You need one \"\"company file\"\" for each company that you want to track through QuickBooks. Looks like, in your case, that is at least the PM and the PH (as you labeled them in your question). The companies that just hold property and pay utilities might be simple enough that you don't need the full power of QB, in which case you might just track their finances on a spread sheet. Subsidiary companies will probably appear as \"\"assets\"\" of some sort on the books of the parent company. This set-up probably does limit liability at some level, but it's going to create a lot of overhead for your that incurs some expense either in your time or in actual fees paid. You should really consider whether the limitations on liability balance against those costs. (Think ahead to what you're going to do when you have to file taxes on this network of companies, whether you need separate insurance policies for each instead of getting one policy covering multiple properties, etc.)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8f39fca14ea7afb4292fba4707c494ce", "text": "Your account entries are generally correct, but do note that the last transaction is a mixture of the balance sheet and income statement. If Quickbooks doesn't do this automatically then the expense must be manually removed from the balance sheet. The expense should be recognized on the balance sheet and income statement when it accrues, and it accrues when the prepaid rent is extinguished when consumed by the landlord, so that is when the second entry in your question should be booked. The cash flow statement will reflect all of these cash transactions immediately.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c776ae1e50f4a97d9e34f3bf6c8e8395", "text": "You could classify the mortgage as a different assets class and then create automated additions and deductions to the account as deems fit. other than that quickbooks online is a bit fishy so it seems.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b80a4da09befcb5e2df91a2c39fd52a4", "text": "\"You report it when the expense was incurred/accrued. Which is, in your case, 2014. There's no such thing as \"\"accounts payable\"\" on tax forms, it is an account on balance sheet, but most likely it is irrelevant for you since your LLC is probably cash-based. The reimbursement is a red-herring, what matters is when you paid the money.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6da3ec1ab9296aa05074dbbc608a1c5c", "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.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d76b0aa423ae2d10652b65376f7b65d4", "text": "\"I'll assume United States as the country; the answer may (probably does) vary somewhat if this is not correct. Also, I preface this with the caveat that I am neither a lawyer nor an accountant. However, this is my understanding: You must recognize the revenue at the time the credits are purchased (when money changes hands), and charge sales tax on the full amount at that time. This is because the customer has pre-paid and purchased a service (i.e. the \"\"credits\"\", which are units of time available in the application). This is clearly a complete transaction. The use of the credits is irrelevant. This is equivalent to a customer purchasing a box of widgets for future delivery; the payment is made and the widgets are available but have simply not been shipped (and therefore used). This mirrors many online service providers (say, NetFlix) in business model. This is different from the case in which a customer purchases a \"\"gift card\"\" or \"\"reloadable debit card\"\". In this case, sales tax is NOT collected (because this is technically not a purchase). Revenue is also not booked at this time. Instead, the revenue is booked when the gift card's balance is used to pay for a good or service, and at that time the tax is collected (usually from the funds on the card). To do otherwise would greatly complicate the tax basis (suppose the gift card is used in a different state or county, where sales tax is charged differently? Suppose the gift card is used to purchase a tax-exempt item?) For justification, see bankruptcy consideration of the two cases. In the former, the customer has \"\"ownership\"\" of an asset (the credits), which cannot be taken from him (although it might be unusable). In the latter, the holder of the debit card is technically an unsecured creditor of the company - and is last in line if the company's assets are liquidated for repayment. Consider also the case where the cost of the \"\"credits\"\" is increased part-way through the year (say, from $10 per credit to $20 per credit) or if a discount promotion is applied (buy 5 credits, get one free). The customer has a \"\"tangible\"\" item (one credit) which gets the same functionality regardless of price. This would be different if instead of \"\"credits\"\" you instead maintain an \"\"account\"\" where the user deposited $1000 and was billed for usage; in this case you fall back to the \"\"gift card\"\" scenario (but usage is charged at the current rate) and revenue is booked when the usage is purchased; similarly, tax is collected on the purchase of the service. For this model to work, the \"\"credit\"\" would likely have to be refundable, and could not expire (see gift cards, above), and must be usable on a variety of \"\"services\"\". You may have particular responsibility in the handling of this \"\"deposit\"\" as well.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b84f329d0bf8bf7e2e8b5754eac8fe44", "text": "\"When you pay expenses on behalf of someone, you do not Debit your expense accounts. You credit your Bank and debit the Liability. The method that you mentioned (debit expense then credit it back to liability) is an acceptable practice, but the method is only used when you accidentially debited your expense accounts without knowing that it is for someone else (or in the case of split transactions). You need to specify \"\"being expense paid on behalf of someone\"\" when you credit the expense account.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "df87670ac7382775987c809f727ed906", "text": "\"A.1 and B.1 are properly balanced, but \"\"Business Expense\"\" is an expense, not an asset. The T entries should be timestamped. The time should be equal to the time on the credit card receipts. This will make audit and balancing easier. A or B can be used, but if the the business is to be reimbursed for personal expenses, the accounts should be renamed to reflect that fact. More explicit account names could be \"\"Business expense - stationary\"\" and \"\"Personal expense - lunch\"\" or even better \"\"Personal expense - cammil - lunch\"\". With a consistent format, the account names can be computer parsed for higher resolution and organization, but when tallying these high resolution accounts, debits & credits should always be used. When it comes time to collect from employees, only accounts with \"\"Personal expense\"\" need be referenced. When it comes time to collect from \"\"cammil\"\", only net accounts of \"\"Personal expense - cammil\"\" need be referenced. An example of higher resolution, to determine what \"\"cammil\"\" owes, would be to copy the main books, reverse any account beginning with \"\"Personal expense - cammil\"\", and then take the balance. Using the entries in the question as an example, here's the account to determine \"\"cammil\"\"'s balance: Now, after all such balancing entries are performed, the net credit \"\"Personal expense - cammil\"\" is what \"\"cammil\"\" owes to the business. The scheme for account names should be from left to right, general to specific.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6b9c8be20e94c5eaf3c1e14bc9a5ab8d", "text": "Judgement, settlement, insurance proceeds, etc etc. These would probably be recorded as a negative expense in the same category where the original expense was recorded.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "84fc8436480e8a494420b0c68ea08c25", "text": "\"I think you misunderstand the purpose of the liability account. I would suggest you review the standard accounting model, but to give you a brief overview: Income and expenses are money coming into and out of your possession. They are the pipes flowing into and out of your \"\"box\"\". Inside your box, you have assets (bank, savings, cash, etc) and liabilities (credit cards, unpaid debts, etc). Money can flow into and out of either asset or liability accounts, for example: deposit a payment (income to asset), buy office supplies with cash (asset to expense), pay a bill with credit card (liability to expense), customer pays one of your debts directly (income to liability). Paying off a debt with an asset does not affect your overall net worth, so paying a check to your credit card bill (asset to liability) doesn't decrease your total balance, it merely moves the value from one bucket to another. Now to your question: Mandatory payments, such as taxes or insurance (or for that matter, utilities, rent, food- all things that \"\"must\"\" be bought occasionally) are not liabilities, instead they are all expenses. They might be paid FROM a liability account, if they are paid on credit for example, but the money still flows from liability to expense. In my own records I have Expense:Taxes and Expense:Insurance, with sub-accounts in each. Where the money comes from depends entirely on how I pay my bills, whether from cash or banks (asset) or whether it's a charge (liability). Sometimes you receive payments back from an insurance company. I find that rather than treating insurance premiums as a positive balance in a liability (with eventual payments as debits to the liability account), it is better to treat any payment from the insurance as income. Hope that helps!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3afb0883ae38ba9c71dcea12eef9398c", "text": "I have been following some of these threads. Some of them are really old. I have read used recording to equity accounts to resolve the imbalance USD issue. The thing I noticed is that all my imbalances occur when paying bills. I took all the bills and set them up as vendor accounts, entered the bills in the new bills, and used the process payment when paying bills. The imbalance issue stopped. It makes sense. The system is a double entry. That's it will credit and debit. Assets accounts are increased with a debit and decreased with a credit. Equity accounts are increased with a credit and decreased with a debit. ie; Say you have an monthly insurance bill for $100. You enter it into the new vendor bill. This credits Accounts Payable. When paying the bill it credits checking, debits account payable, credits vendor account, debits the expense insurance. In short for each credit there has to be a debit for the books to balance. When there is no account for it to record to it will record in Imbalance USD to balance the books.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "9c35407c8dfdd0bc2be3f53cac7a1ea2", "text": "Rather than using the Human Development Index or Ease of Doing Business, if you primary purpose is for investments, you need to consider the Country rating provided by various agencies like These would tell as to how good the country is for investment in general. Just to highlight a difference, China may not fare very high in Human Development Index, however right now from investment point of view its a pretty good market. once you have decided the countries, you can either invest in funds specalizing in these countries or if legally permitted invest directly into the leading stock index in such countries. If your intention is to start a business in these countries, then you need to look at some other indexes. http://www.standardandpoors.com/ratings/articles/en/us/?assetID=1245219962821 http://www.fitchratings.com/jsp/sector/Sector.faces?selectedTab=Overview&Ne=4293330737%2b11&N=0 http://v3.moodys.com/Pages/default.aspx", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "97ba7c78d9da95d26c6773d89ff25ec3", "text": "\"It's interesting that you use so many different risk measures. Here's what I'd like to know more in detail: 1) About the use of VaR. I've heard (from a friend, may be unreliable) that some investment managers like Neuberger Berman doesn't use VaR for assessing risk and maintaining capital adequacy requirements. Rather, some firms only rely on tracking error, beta, standard deviation, etc. Why do you think is this so? Isn't VaR supposed to be a widely accepted risk measure. 2) The whole \"\"Expected Shortfall vs. VaR\"\" debate. I've read some papers comparing Expected Shortfall and VaR. Mainly, they criticize VaR for not being able to consider the 1% probability left where losses can (probably) skyrocket to infinity. If I need to choose between the two, which do you think is better and why?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "96c20301e3d9cce0e80714e7dbe7ede1", "text": "You could look up the P/E of an equivalent ETF, or break the ETF into components and look those up. Each index has its own methodology, usually weighted by market cap. See here: http://www.amex.com/etf/prodInf/EtAllhold.jsp?Product_Symbol=DIA", "title": "" }, { "docid": "27956ee0d314fb8c8e1a361b3b04ae07", "text": "I would say your decision making is reasonable. You are in the middle of Brexit and nobody knows what that means. Civil society in the United States is very strained at the moment. The one seeming source of stability in Europe, Germany, may end up with a very weakened government. The only country that is probably stable is China and it has weak protections for foreign investors. Law precedes economics, even though economics often ends up dictating the law in the long run. The only thing that may come to mind is doing two things differently. The first is mentally dropping the long-term versus short-term dichotomy and instead think in terms of the types of risks an investment is exposed to, such as currency risk, political risk, liquidity risk and so forth. Maturity risk is just one type of risk. The second is to consider taking some types of risks that are hedged either by put contracts to limit the downside loss, or consider buying longer-dated call contracts using a small percentage of your money. If the underlying price falls, then the call contracts will be a total loss, but if the price increases then you will receive most of the increase (minus the premium). If you are uncomfortable purchasing individual assets directly, then I would say you are probably doing everything that you reasonably can do.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "61e08f0d238c2474a7eb648aac96c339", "text": "\"TL;DR - go with something like Barry Ritholtz's All Century Portfolio: 20 percent total U.S stock market 5 percent U.S. REITs 5 percent U.S. small cap value 15 percent Pacific equities 15 percent European equities 10 percent U.S. TIPs 10 percent U.S. high yield corp bonds 20 percent U.S. total bond UK property market are absurdly high and will be crashing a lot very soon The price to rent ratio is certainly very high in the UK. According to this article, it takes 48 years of rent to pay for the same apartment in London. That sounds like a terrible deal to me. I have no idea about where prices will go in the future, but I wouldn't voluntarily buy in that market. I'm hesitant to invest in stocks for the fear of losing everything A stock index fund is a collection of stocks. For example the S&P 500 index fund is a collection of the largest 500 US public companies (Apple, Google, Shell, Ford, etc.). If you buy the S&P 500 index, the 500 largest US companies would have to go bankrupt for you to \"\"lose everything\"\" - there would have to be a zombie apocalypse. He's trying to get me to invest in Gold and Silver (but mostly silver), but I neither know anything about gold or silver, nor know anyone who takes this approach. This is what Jeremy Siegel said about gold in late 2013: \"\"I’m not enthusiastic about gold because I think gold is priced for either hyperinflation or the end of the world.\"\" Barry Ritholtz also speaks much wisdom about gold. In short, don't buy it and stop listening to your friend. Is buying a property now with the intention of selling it in a couple of years for profit (and repeat until I have substantial amount to invest in something big) a bad idea? If the home price does not appreciate, will this approach save you or lose you money? In other words, would it be profitable to substitute your rent payment for a mortgage payment? If not, you will be speculating, not investing. Here's an articles that discusses the difference between speculating and investing. I don't recommend speculating.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7176ccf3641af634c793417c35c17887", "text": "A target date fund is NOT a world market index. There is no requirement that it be weighted based on the weights of the various world stock markets. If anything, historically (since the invention of target date funds), a 2:1 ratio is actually pretty low. 6:1 is, or was, probably more common. Just a token amount to non-US investments.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ae119a1854147b5b6ee88b6f3dd09dc4", "text": "\"He is wrong. Using Total Return (Reinvesting Dividend), from the peak in December 1999, it only took 6 years to recover. You can check the data for free here. Make sure you choose \"\"Gross Index Level\"\". ACWI Index is Developed Markets + Emerging Markets. World Index is Developed Markets only.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "55b1341a3a982569d7c490daba32c0b2", "text": "\"I don't think blanket answers are very helpful. You are asking the right question when you are young! You have a large number of investment options and Australia has the Superannuation system that you can extract significant tax value from. I've not attempted to grade these with regard to \"\"risk\"\", as different people will rate various things with different levels, depending on their experience and knowledge. Consider the following factors for you:-\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ca41d7db1b793e37d2a3a3973139132e", "text": "\"Wow, this analysis really surprised me. Very complete and useful, but i think my teacher request was easier. He just said: \"\"Try to build a diversified portfolio. Then try to add a commodity (like silver or gold) and understand how the risk vary introducing an asset like this.\"\" So, i'm basically making a stocks portfolio and i'm calculating its expected return and risk. (for example 40%FB, 10%JNJ, 20%GS, 10%F and 20%MCD) then i'm adding GLD (so now i have something like 20%FB, 10%JNJ, 10%GS, 10%F and 20%MCD 30%GLD) and i'm actually making an excel spreadsheet where i calculate all the: -Expected returns -St Deviation -Covariance At the end i compare the returns and the risks on the 2 different portfolios.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e0f0da2c0e5a4bfa04bda19efad7eb01", "text": "There are some ETF's on the Indian market that invest in broad indexes in other countries Here's an article discussing this Be aware that such investments carry an additional risk you do not have when investing in your local market, which is 'currency risk' If for example you invest in a ETF that represents the US S&P500 index, and the US dollar weakens relative to the indian rupee, you could see the value if your investment in the US market go down, even if the index itself is 'up' (but not as much as the change in currency values). A lot of investment advisors recommend that you have at least 75% of your investments in things which are denominated in your local currency (well technically, the same currency as your liabilities), and no more than 25% invested internationally. In large part the reason for this advice is to reduce your exposure to currency risk.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "879df5cccfdb6e93aa59f97d4b067107", "text": "Russia current account. https://tradingeconomics.com/russia/current-account US current account https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/current-account Russia balance of trade https://tradingeconomics.com/russia/balance-of-trade US balance of trade https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/balance-of-trade Forex reserve by country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_foreign-exchange_reserves List of country by oil import size. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_oil_imports . If I have to make a wild guess, country with huge deficit everything and no saving usually sinks faster in time of crisis.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e72a9e53a04c6d504a9d521f8f8eb891", "text": "Haven't there been examples of governments defaulting, delaying payment and imposing haircuts on investors? Greece and Argentina come to mind. Quite a few Govt have defaulted in the past or were very of default or crisis. Most 3rd world countries or developing countries have under gone stress at some point. Greece was amongst the first example of Developed country going bankrupt. am I not better off if the fund invests solely in AAA corporate bonds, avoiding government bonds? Well that depends. Corporate bonds are not safer than Government Bonds. There have been instances of Corporate bonds not giving the required returns.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8f4704351a133fc68df4838e78f5ece3", "text": "\"Taking examples from this loosely Googled page: http://www.fundlibrary.com/features/columns/page.asp?id=14406 If you find, or calculate, the standard deviation (volatility) of the returns from your various investment classes you will find they range from low-risk (low volatility), such as Cash, to high-risk (high volatility), such as Strategic Growth. The risk rating (volatility) is a good indicator of how reactive to market conditions your investment is likely to be. As you can see below, from mid-2010 to mid-2011 the High Risk index performed really well, but it was also most reactive when the market subsequently turned down. The medium risk indices performed the best over the chart period, 2010 to 2013, but it could have turned out different. Generally, you choose your investment according to your \"\"risk appetite\"\" - how much you're willing to risk. You might play safe with, say, 30% cash, 60% medium risk, 10% high risk. (Then again, are you paying someone to manage cash, which you might be able to do for free in a bank?) Assuming, for a moment, European (3.) and Intnl Equity Tracker (9.) had the same medium risk profile, then holding 50% & 50% would also add some currency diversification, which is usually advisable. However, the main choice is down to risk appetite. To address your specific question: \"\"my main interest for now is between Stockmarket Growth and Strategic Growth\"\", first thing to do is check their volatilities. For a further level of sophistication you can check how they are correlated against each other. If they are inversely correlated, i.e. one goes up when the other goes down, then holding some of each could be a good diversification. FYI: An Introduction to Investment Theory The historical returns are important too, but the investment classes your pension fund is offering will probably be reasonably aligned on a risk-return basis. You should check though. I.e. do they line up on a plot of 3 year Return vs Volatility? e.g. the line through SA Cash - SA Bonds - Vol Target 20 - SA Equity. Source\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b4b354080dc85234776d08425d237976", "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).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "605eb7aa548de18d74c5f4e178dd3731", "text": "First, currencies are not an investment; they are a medium of exchange; that is, you use currency to buy goods and services and/or investments. The goods and services you intend to buy in your retirement are presumably going to be bought in your country; to buy these you will need your country's currency. The investments you intend to buy now require the currency of whatever country they are located in. If you want to buy shares in Microsoft you need USD; if you want shares in BHP-Billiton you need AUD or GBP (It is traded on two exchanges), if you want property in Kuwait you need KWD and if you want bonds in your country you need IDR. When you sell these later to buy the goods and services you were saving for you need to convert from whatever currency you get for selling them into whatever currency you need to buy. When you invest you are taking on risk for which you expect to be compensated for - the higher the risk you take the better the returns had better be because there is always the chance that they will be negative, right down to losing it all if you are unlucky. There is no 100% safe investment; if you want to make sure you get full value for your money spend it all right now! If you invest overseas then, in addition to all the other investment risks, you are adding currency risk as well. That is, the risk that when you redeem your investments the overseas currency will have fallen relative you your currency. One of the best ways of mitigating risk is diversification; which allows the same return at a lower risk (or a higher return at the same risk). A pure equity portfolio is not diversified across asset classes (hopefully it is diversified across the equities). Equities are a high risk-high yield class; particularly in a developing economy like Indonesia. If you are very young with a decades long investment horizon this may be OK but even then, a diversified portfolio will probably offer better rewards at the same risk. Diversifying into local cash, bonds and property with a little foreign equities, bonds and property will serve you better than worrying about the strength of the IDR. Oh, and pay a professional for some real advice rather than listening to strangers on the internet.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c0b0f2a8a8ad5213aec82f7c592e9d45", "text": "Debit cards with the Visa or Mastercard symbol on them work technically everywhere where credit cards work. There are some limitations where the respective business does not accept them, for example car rentals want a credit card for potential extra charges; but most of the time, for day-to-day shopping and dining, debit cards work fine. However, you should read up the potential risks. A credit card gives you some security by buffering incorrect/fraudulent charges from your account, and credit card companies also help you reverse incorrect charges, before you ever have to pay for it. If you use a debit card, it is your money on the line immediately - any incorrect charge, even accidential, takes your money from your account, and it is gone while you work on reversing the charge. Any theft, and your account can be cleaned out, and you will be without money while you go after the thief. Many people consider the debit card risk too high, and don't use them for this reason. However, many people do use them - it is up to you.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "e2eb5c74ba2e69423dffe0658b4f048f", "text": "If you believe you can time the crash, then We all know what comes after a crash… just as we know what comes after the doom, we just don’t know when….", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "0e5ca9e4f001385b1c89662258f20c91", "text": "If the market has not crashed but you know it will, sell short or buy puts. If the market has crashed, buy equities while they are cheap. If you don't know if or when it will crash hold a diversified portfolio including stocks, bonds, real estate, and alternatives (gold, etc).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d0dc5fa4905cb40edf4151ebb4465f9b", "text": "\"I've never invested in penny stocks. My #1 investing rule, buy what you know and use. People get burned because they hear about the next big thing, go invest! to just end up losing everything because they have no clue in what they're investing in. From what I've found, until you have minimum of $5k to invest, put everything in a single investment. The reason for this, as others have mentioned, is that commissions eat up just about all your profits. My opinion, don't put it in a bond, returns are garbage right now - however they are \"\"safe\"\". Because this is $1000 we're talking about and not your life savings, put it in a equity like a stock to try and maximize your return. I aim for 15% returns on stocks and can generally achieve 10-15% consistently. The problem is when you get greedy and keep thinking it will go above once you're at 10-15%. Sell it. Sell it right away :) If it drops down -15% you have to be willing to accept that risk. The nice thing is that you can wait it out. I try to put a 3 month time frame on things I buy to make money. Once you start getting a more sizable chunk of money to play around with you should start to diversify. In Canada at least, once you have a trading account with a decent size investment the commissions get reduced to like $10 a trade. With your consistent 10% returns and additional savings you'll start to build up your portfolio. Keep at it and best of luck!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ab5d1d5274c44cce8eee1cc4ef8c802d", "text": "The idea being that if / when the CAD recovers I could see a gain of ~30%. That is the big if, maybe the USD and CAD will return to their previous exchange rates, maybe the CAD will fall further, you just don't know. You should try to keep a diversified pool of investments, that may include some cash in various currencies but unless you think you will need the money in the next few years it should probablly be mostly in other things. If you do think you will need the money in the next few years it should probablly be in a currency that is stable relative to the things you are likely to need it for.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "73dda99e4d3a92db55fb384c2af2a06c", "text": "Are you considering using it? Is that the point of the post? If that's the case, I would say it's always a good idea to fully leverage your assets for investment. I recommend leveraging everything you can to maximize your profits. If you own a house, car, or anything else of value, you should use it as collateral. Then, typically any stock trading for $0.01 is a good investment - they almost never go to $0 and all it takes is a movement of $0.01 to double your money. Roulette also has similar payouts, but remember to always bet on red, never black. Good luck - send pictures of your mansion soon!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0eb21d9f6455f52ae8801d8e14bb77ec", "text": "Not a day goes by that someone isn't forecasting a collapse or meteoric rise. Have you read Ravi Batra's The Great Depression of 1990? The '90s went on to return an amazing 18.3%/yr compound growth rate for the decade. (The book sells for just over $3 with free Amazon shipping.) In 1987, Elaine Garzarelli predicted the crash. But went years after to produce unremarkable results. Me? I saw that 1987 was up 5% or so year on year (in hindsight , of course), and by just staying invested, I added deposits throughout the year, and saw that 5% return. What crash? Looking back now, it was a tiny blip. You need to be diversified in a way that one segment of the market falling won't ruin you. If you think the world is ending, you should make peace with your loved ones and your God, no investment advice will be of any value. (Nor will gold for that matter.)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "674ad41569cab3cb71035f7bafdfd946", "text": "Apart from some of the excellent things others say, you could borrow money in AUD and invest that in another currency (that's risky but interesting) if the AUD interest rate is low and the other countries interest rate is higher, you'll eventually win. Also, look at what John Paulson did in 2007, 2008... I wish I'd thought of that when I was in your position (predicting a housing crisis)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7c0129ccf189b8444f3ea2693d965ba8", "text": "\"First off, I would label this as speculation, not investing. There are many variables that you don't seem to be considering, and putting down such a small amount opens you to a wide variety of risks. Not having an \"\"emergency fund\"\" for the rental increases that risk greatly. (I assume that you would not have an emergency fund based upon \"\"The basic idea is to save up a 20% down payment on a property and take out a mortgage\"\".) This type of speculation lent a hand in the housing bubble. Is your home paid off? If not you can reduce your personal risk (by owning your home), and have a pretty safe investment in real estate. Mission accomplished. My hope for you would be that you are also putting money in the market. Historically it has performed quite well while always having its share of \"\"chicken littles\"\".\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "661faa4d48f96d63ec1a4467fefc9842", "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!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d8b7786c9df393ebf88eb4238d98e569", "text": "\"For US punters, the Centre for Economic and Policy Research has a Housing Cost Calculator you can play with. The BBC provides this one for the UK. For everyone else, there are a few rules of thumb (use with discretion and only as a ball-park guide): Your example of a Gross Rental Yield of 5% would have to be weighed up against local investment returns. Read Wikipedia's comprehensive \"\"Real-estate bubble\"\" article. Update: spotted that Fennec included this link at the NY Times which contains a Buy or Rent Calculator.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bb1edfca2ef6e43d3b7e8ff2e4131440", "text": "Risk is the problem, as others have pointed out. Your fixed mortgage interest rate is for a set period of time only. Let's say your 3% might be good for five years, because that's typical of fixed-rate mortages in Canada. So, what happens in five years if your investment has dropped 50% due to a prolonged bear market, and interest rates have since moved up from 3% to 8%? Your investment would be underwater, and you wouldn't have enough to pay off the loan and exit the failed strategy. Rather, you might just be stuck with renewing the mortage at a rate that makes the strategy far less attractive, being more likely to lose money in the long run than to earn any. Leverage, or borrowing to invest, amplifies your risk considerably. If you invest your own money in the market, you might lose what you started with, but if you borrow to invest, you might lose much more than you started with. There's also one very specific issue with the example investment you've proposed: You would be borrowing Canadian dollars but investing in an index fund of U.S.-based companies that trade in U.S. dollars. Even if the index has positive returns in U.S. dollar terms, you might end up losing money if the Canadian dollar strengthens vs. the U.S. dollar. It has happened before, multiple times. So, while this strategy has worked wonderfully in the past, it has also failed disastrously in the past. Unless you have a crystal ball, you need to be aware of the various risks and weigh them vs. the potential rewards. There is no free lunch.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "481467d7deea46bb5ea3a473c02ce5ef", "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.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "04bc38af33a77e553afb790380e0d30b", "text": "You seem to underestimate the risk of this deal for the inverstors. A person purchasing a residence is happy to pay $70K instead of $150K now, and the only risk they take is that the construction company fails to build the condo. Whatever happens on the estate market in two years, they still saved the price difference between the price of complete apartments and to-be-build apartments (which by the way may be less than $150K-$70K, since that $150K is the price on a hot market in two years). However, an investor aiming to earn money counts on that the property will actually cost $150K in two years, so he's additionally taking the risk that the estate market may drop. Should that happen, their return on investment will be considerably lower, and it's entirely possible they will make a loss instead of a profit. At this point, this becomes yet another high risk investment option, like financing a startup.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4ec9c5228759edbab19be997d455092a", "text": "Real estate is not an investment but pure speculation. Rental income may make it look like an investment but if you ask some experienced investor you would be told to stay away from real estate unless it is for your own use. If you believe otherwise then please read on : Another strong reason not to buy real estate right now is the low interest rates. You should be selling real estate when the interest rates are so low not buying it. You buy real estate when the interest rate cycle peaks like you would see in Russia in months to come with 17% central bank rate right now and if it goes up a little more that is when it is time to start looking for a property in Russia. This thread sums it up nicely.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b3c60e0220312ea89289250d4063e229", "text": "In the 2008 housing crash, cash was king. Cash can make your mortgage payment, buy groceries, utilities, etc. Great deals on bank owned properties were available for those with cash. Getting a mortgage in 2008-2011 was tough. If you are worried about stock market crashing, then diversification is key. Don't have all your investments in one mutual fund or sector. Gold and precious metals have a place in one's portfolio, say 5-10 percent as an insurance policy. The days of using a Gold Double Eagle to pay the property taxes are largely gone, although Utah does allow it. The biggest lesson I took from the crash is you cant have too much cash saved. Build up the rainy day fund.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "621c06db76d9442ff03a55f023763739", "text": "It sounds like you want to lock-up your money in something relatively safe, and relatively hard to touch. You may want to consider a GIC (TD has one I found in a quick search) - from what I see it's the closest thing to a US CD. You won't get much back, but if you pick a 5-year term, you can't spend it* easily. Other options might be to buy an ETF, or get into REITs - but that will depend on your risk comfort. Also - to add from the comment Rick left - be sure to pay off any high-interest debts: especially if they're on a credit card, it will help you later on. * easily .. you can withdraw, but there're generally penalties", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "c09e0ca4cba8ddc88883306ee7d79eac", "text": "\"This sounds like a FATCA issue. I will attempt to explain, but please confirm with your own research, as I am not a FATCA expert. If a foreign institution has made a policy decision not to accept US customers because of the Foreign Financial Institution (FFI) obligations under FATCA, then that will of course exclude you even if you are resident outside the US. The US government asserts the principle of universal tax jurisdiction over its citizens. The institution may have a publicly available FATCA policy statement or otherwise be covered in a new story, so you can confirm this is what has happened. Failing that, I would follow up and ask for clarification. You may be able to find an institution that accepts US citizens as investors. This requires some research, maybe some legwork. Renunciation of your citizenship is the most certain way to circumvent this issue, if you are prepared to take such a drastic step. Such a step would require thought and planning. Note that there would be an expatriation tax (\"\"exit tax\"\") that deems a disposition of all your assets (mark to market for all your assets) under IRC § 877. A less direct but far less extreme measure would be to use an intermediary, either one that has access or a foreign entity (i.e. non-US entity) that can gain access. A Non-Financial Foreign Entity (NFFE) is itself subject to withholding rules of FATCA, so it must withhold payments to you and any other US persons. But the investing institutions will not become FFIs by paying an NFFE; the obligation rests on the FFI. PWC Australia has a nice little writeup that explains some of the key terms and concepts of FATCA. Of course, the simplest solution is probably to use US institutions, where possible. Non-foreign entities do not have foreign obligations under FATCA.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f699e35592c8a96832b4c19cc1039512", "text": "NL7 is most likely right. With the rise of regulatory burden some financial institutions are refusing to do business for which they are at risk of not being compliant (because of complexity) or where being compliant is to onerous. Would suggest you have a look at Good luck", "title": "" }, { "docid": "791b9c92810949d5143fb8de3b0426a3", "text": "I am a US citizen by birth only. I left the US aged 6 weeks old and have never lived there. I am also a UK citizen but TD Waterhouse have just followed their policy and asked me to close my account under FATCA. It is a complete nightmare for dual nationals who have little or no US connection. IG.com seem to allow me to transfer my holdings so long as I steer clear of US investments. Furious with the US and would love to renounce citizenship but will have to pay $2500 or thereabouts to follow the US process. So much for Land of the Free!", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "b61508d8f8e827dbf949055ad91010b6", "text": "\"Ultimately you are as stuck as all other investors with low returns which get taxed. However there are a few possible mitigations. You can put up to 15k p.a. into a \"\"normal\"\" ISA (either cash or stocks & shares, or a combination) if your target is to generate the depost over 5 years you should maximise the amount you put in an ISA. Then when you come to buy, you cash in that part needed to top up your other savings for a deposit - i.e. keep the rest in for long term savings. The help to buy ISA might be helpful, but yes there is a limit on the purchase price which in London will restrict you. Several banks are offering good interest on limited sums in current accounts - Santander is probably the best you can get 3% (taxed) on up to 20K - this is a good \"\"safe\"\" return. Just open a 123 Account, arrange to pay out a couple of DDs and pay in £500 a month (you can take the £500 straight out again). I think Lloyds and TSB also offer similar but on much smaller ammounts. Be warned this strategy taken to the limit will involve some complexity checking your various accounts each month. After that you will end up trading better returns for greater risk by using more volatile stock market investments rather than cash deposits.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ab34b60120cf23ddbbbff6347b3fc837", "text": "I believe your last requirement is the main problem. AIUI the law requires that ISA providers allow withdrawals. They can require a notice period and they can penalise you (e.g. via lost interest) for withdrawing but they cannot prevent you accessing your money for an extended period.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3bc01e681551f89397ada2de94172c65", "text": "\"Is he affiliated with the company charging this fee? If so, 1% is great. For him. You are correct, this is way too high. Whatever tax benefit this account provides is negated over a sufficiently long period of time. you need a different plan, and perhaps, a different friend. I see the ISA is similar to the US Roth account. Post tax money deposited, but growth and withdrawals tax free. (Someone correct, if I mis-read this). Consider - You deposit £10,000. 7.2% growth over 10 years and you'd have £20,000. Not quite, since 1% is taken each year, you have £18,250. Here's what's crazy. When you realize you lost £1750 to fees, it's really 17.5% of the £10,000 your account would have grown absent those fees. In the US, our long term capital gain rate is 15%, so the fees after 10 years more than wipe out the benefit. We are not supposed to recommend investments here, but it's safe to say there are ETFs (baskets of stocks reflecting an index, but trading like an individual stock) that have fees less than .1%. The UK tag is appreciated, but your concern regarding fees is universal. Sorry for the long lecture, but \"\"1%, bad.\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5390ccf80d5ca97b63c0c6cb1002ce4d", "text": "Yes many people operate accounts in usa from outside usa. You need a brokerage account opened in the name of your sister and then her username and password. Remember that brokerages may check the location of login and may ask security questions before login. So when your sister opens her account , please get the security questions. Also note that usa markets open ( 7.00 pm or 8.00 pm IST depending on daylight savings in usa). So this means when they close at 4:00 pm ET, it will be 1:30 or 2:30 am in India. This means it will affect your sleeping hours if you intend to day trade. Also understand that there are some day trading restrictions and balances associate. Normally brokerages need 25,000 $ for you to be a day trader. Finally CFA is not a qualification to be a trader and desire to become a trader doesn't make one a trader. TO give an analogy , just because you want to be a cricketer doesn't make you one. It needs a lot of practice and discipline.Also since in bangladesh , you will always convert the usa amount to bangladeshi currency and think of profits and losses in those terms. This might actually be bad.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0b9411e59916dbb52943a980d9e190c0", "text": "\"Probably not. For your savings to enter an RRSP account, the recipient account must itself be an RRSP (duh! I hear you say). This appears to rule out any UK-based banks as they would not offer this type of account, which appears to be confirmed with a quick Google search returning no useful result for \"\"rrsp uk\"\". According to Income Tax Folio S3-F10-C1, Qualified Investments – RRSPs, RESPs, RRIFs, RDSPs and TFSAs, an RRSP may include listed securities traded on designated stock exchanges, including the London Stock Exchange. While this enables some possibilities, it is not clear that Canadian banks would offer much in the form of UK RRSPs. Your best bet may be to contact your bank and ask if they offer RRSP services for expats. Here is a list of Canadian banks in the UK. Obviously, this does not mean that they offer the type of service you are looking for (or even that they offer retail services, this may be just a trading office). Finally, if you need to move money from an RRSP to anything other than an RRSP this will trigger the inclusion of the sale proceeds as taxable income in that year.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "84411a050a4a0f71b511778dfd57d32c", "text": "\"First, bear in mind that you're talking about having an average of ~£2000 saved up at any given time (if you spend all your stipend every quarter at a steady rate you'll start out with all of it and have none left at the end of the quarter), along with any long-term savings you manage to build up over time. In today's low-interest rate environment of ~1% interest rates, we're talking about approximately £20/year interest. So it's not worth a huge amount of effort to optimise this. You mentioned a \"\"bonus\"\", but looking at the Charter Savings website I don't actually see one listed for either the Cash ISA or the savings accounts you mention. In general, banks in the UK actually use bonus rates as a short-term measure to suck in new customers, and the bonuses typically expire after a while leaving you with a worse rate. Also, I don't think either of the rates you mention is guaranteed - they are both listed as \"\"variable\"\". In reality, I doubt they will go down too much more, given that the likely next move in UK interest rates is upwards. The typical main advantage of an ISA is its tax free nature. But from your question I assume you don't have any other income, so you won't need to pay tax on any interest you earn outside an ISA either. Also, given that your budget is quite tight and you expect to spend most or all of your stipend, there's no advantage to using an account where you can build up long-term tax-free savings. Even if you do have a few thousand pounds left over by the end of your PhD, you'll easily be able to put those into an ISA at that point given the annual limit of £20K. You're right not to want to take any risks with the money, and there aren't really any risk-free investments other than savings accounts available, at least on the timescales you're talking about. So overall I'd just go for the 1.26% return. Edit: as @marktristan's answer points out, you will probably be able to find a \"\"loss leader\"\" current account that actually offers more interest than a savings account. You'll need to either use a single current account and manage your budgeting carefully, or use a second current account as your \"\"savings\"\" account and make sure to set things up to satisfy the requirements of the account you choose, such as incoming payments or outgoing direct debits.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3a5e26a54c14df9789647c1dea47ee96", "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", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a6f3673e71cdfeb5998f0abfae96975d", "text": "In general, to someone in a similar circumstance I might suggest that the lowest-risk option is to immediately convert your excess currency into the currency you will be spending. Note that 'risk' here refers only to the variance in possible outcomes. By converting to EUR now (assuming you are moving to an EU country using the EUR), you eliminate the chance that the GBP will weaken. But you also eliminate the chance that the GBP will strengthen. Thus, you have reduced the variance in possible outcomes so that you have a 'known' amount of EUR. To put money in a different currency than what you will be using is a form of investing, and it is one that can be considered high risk. Invest in a UK company while you plan on staying in the UK, and you take on the risk of stock ownership only. But invest in a German company while you plan on staying in the UK, you take on the risk of stock ownership + the risk of currency volatility. If you are prepared for this type of risk and understand it, you may want to take on this type of risk - but you really must understand what you're getting into before you do this. For most people, I think it's fair to say that fx investing is more accurately called gambling [See more comments on the risk of fx trading here: https://money.stackexchange.com/a/76482/44232]. However, this risk reduction only truly applies if you are certain that you will be moving to an EUR country. If you invest in EUR but then move to the US, you have not 'solved' your currency volatility problem, you have simply replaced your GBP risk with EUR risk. If you had your plane ticket in hand and nothing could stop you, then you know what your currency needs will be in 2 years. But if you have any doubt, then exchanging currency now may not be reducing your risk at all. What if you exchange for EUR today, and in a year you decide (for all the various reasons that circumstances in life may change) that you will stay in the UK after all. And during that time, what if the GBP strengthened again? You will have taken on risk unnecessarily. So, if you lack full confidence in your move, you may want to avoid fully trading your GBP today. Perhaps you could put away some amount every month into EUR (if you plan on moving to an EUR country), and leave some/most in GBP. This would not fully eliminate your currency risk if you move, but it would also not fully expose yourself to risk if you end up not moving. Just remember that doing this is not a guarantee that the EUR will strengthen and the GBP will weaken.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3640c3d8eb5ae32901be9fe97c340101", "text": "There's no law that prohibits a US citizen or US LPR from holding an account abroad, at least in a country that's not subject to some sort of embargo, so I don't see how it could affect your wife's chances of getting US citizenship when she's eligible. As mentioned by other posters, you'll have to file FBAR if the money you have in all your accounts abroad exceeds $10k at any point of the year and if the account pays any interest, you'll have to tell the IRS about the interest paid and (if applicable) taxes you paid on the interest income abroad.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c75297b62f73553ec352cda7a9fff1b6", "text": "\"I've done exactly what you say at one of my brokers. With the restriction that I have to deposit the money in the \"\"right\"\" way, and I don't do it too often. The broker is meant to be a trading firm and not a currency exchange house after all. I usually do the exchange the opposite of you, so I do USD -> GBP, but that shouldn't make any difference. I put \"\"right\"\" in quotes not to indicate there is anything illegal going on, but to indicate the broker does put restrictions on transferring out for some forms of deposits. So the key is to not ACH the money in, nor send a check, nor bill pay it, but rather to wire it in. A wire deposit with them has no holds and no time limits on withdrawal locations. My US bank originates a wire, I trade at spot in the opposite direction of you (USD -> GBP), wait 2 days for the trade to settle, then wire the money out to my UK bank. Commissions and fees for this process are low. All told, I pay about $20 USD per xfer and get spot rates, though it does take approx 3 trading days for the whole process (assuming you don't try to wait for a target rate but rather take market rate.)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ba94b1b00e70a6501fe7dbcae3af0781", "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.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b4165d70707fe2fa712a25c37ca6ab5f", "text": "\"Where are you from? The Netherlands has tax treaties with different countries that may offer you some additional options. The Netherlands calculates a maximum tax free contribution to your pension each year based on your income. If you contributed less than you were allowed to (pensioengat), you can invest the difference between your actual and allowed contributions in special retirement investments that usually offer tax advantages. A gap like this can be due to getting a bonus or a raise. After looking around, the investments available are either a special savings account (banksparen) or an annuity (lijfrente). Your allowed contributions to both will be tax deductible and the investment itself is excluded from wealth tax (box 3 taxes). I also see Aegon offering an \"\"investment annuity\"\" that lets you invest in any of 7 of their mutual funds until a certain date at which time you liquidate and use the proceeds to fund an annuity. With the Dutch retirement options, wou will not in general get the same freedom of choice or low costs associated with IRAs in the US. I'm not sure about ISAs in the UK. It's also important to check any tax agreements between countries to ensure your chosen investment vehicle gets the tax advantaged treatment in your home country as it does in the Netherlands. For US citizens, this is important even when living abroad. For others, it is important if you return to your home country and still have this investment. If you are a US citizen, you have an additional option. The US / Dutch tax treaty allows you to make these contributions to preexisting (i.e. you had these before moving to NL) retirement accounts in the US like an IRA. Note that in practice it may be difficult to contribute to an existing Roth IRA because you would need to have earned income after the foreign income tax deduction but less than the maximum income for a Roth contribution.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "52a51f7367d454bf22824007f02cd520", "text": "The main difference is that the ISA account like a Cash ISA shelters you from TAX - you don't have to worry about Capital Gains TAX. The other account is normal taxable account. With only £500 to invest you will be paying a high % in charges so... To start out I would look at some of the Investment Trust savings schemes where you can save a small amount monthly very cost-effectively - save £50 a month for a year to see how you get on. Some Trusts to look at include Wittan, City Of London and Lowland", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dbece9ee39b809d96739060cbb62da72", "text": "\"To other users save yourselves time, do not test any of the alternatives mentioned in this post. I have, to no avail. At the moment (nov/2013) Saxobank unfortunately seems to be the only broker who offers OTC (over-the counter) FX options trading to Retail Investors. In other words, it is the only alternative for those who are interested in trading non-exchange options (ie, only alternative to those interested in trading FX options with any date or strike, rather than only one date per month and strikes every 50 pips only). I say \"\"unfortunately\"\" because competition is good, Saxo options spreads are a rip off, and their platform extremely clunky. But it is what it is.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "836c45df6cea7cf6e1395f3d353619b6", "text": "It would essentially make goods from other countries more cheaper than goods from US. And it would make imports from these countries to China more expensive. The below illustration is just with 2 major currencies and is more illustrative to show the effect. It does not actually mean the goods from these countries would be cheaper. 1 GBP = 1.60 USD 1 EUR = 1.40 USD 1 CNY = 0.15 USD Lets say the above are the rates for GBP, EUR, CNY. The cost of a particular goods (assume Pencils) in international market is 2 USD. This means for the cost of manufacturing this should be less than GBP 1.25 in UK, less than 1.43 in Euro Countires, less than 13.33 CNY in China. Only then export would make sense. If the real cost of manufacturing is say 1.4 GBP in UK, 1.5 EUR in Euro countires, clearly they cannot compete and would loose. Now lets say the USD has appreciated by 20% against other currencies. The CNY is at same rate. 1 GBP = 1.28 USD 1 EUR = 1.12 USD 1 CNY = 0.15 USD Now at this rate the cost of manufacturing should be less than GBP 1.56 GBP, less than 1.78 EUR in Euro Countires. In effect this is more than the cost of manufacturing. So in effect the goods from other countires have become cheaper/compatative and goods from China have become expensive. Similarly the imports from these countires to China would be more expensive.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "b06c0b97de0ebf63398fcb54dfedfbf0", "text": "https://www.google.com/search?q=quarterly+and+annual+financial+report+calendar&oq=quarterly+and+annual+financial+report+calendar&aqs=chrome..69i57.9351j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 The third result on Google is: https://www.bloomberg.com/markets/earnings-calendar/us The fourth result on Google is: https://finance.yahoo.com/calendar/earnings", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "3e1635a637bbb1a5c4363476bdfa51e1", "text": "\"For US equities, Edgar Online is where companies post their government filings to the SEC. On Google Finance, you would look at the \"\"SEC filings\"\" link on the page, and then find their 10K and 10Q documents, where that information is listed and already calculated. Many companies also have these same documents posted on their Investor Relations web pages.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2639dfbfda29a4b457a716086b92953d", "text": "The most important filings are: Form 10-K, which is the annual report required by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Form 10-Q, for the interim quarters.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "57fb897c059fe117bf76781c5306adb8", "text": "\"Thanks for the response. I am using WRDS database and we are currently filtering through various variables like operating income, free cash flow etc. Main issue right now is that the database seems to only go up to 2015...is there a similar database that has 2016 info? filtering out the \"\"recent equity issuance or M&amp;A activity exceeding 10% of total assets\"\" is another story, namely, how can I identify M&amp;A activity? I suppose we can filter it with algorithm stating if company's equity suddenly jumps 10% or more, it get's flagged\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c03a09f06650bf57d78ea96446ea5f09", "text": "Usually you want two consecutive quarters before declaring a recession. This blog doesn't reference any seasonal adjustment; a one or two month decline may be to any number of reasons. E.g. labor numbers dropped this month largely attributed to weather. I only see screen shots of excel sheets, I'm not willing to invest any time into parsing that out :(", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ff49b9a4ec21562562c1d00890c4883e", "text": "Just look at the filing date of the 10Q and then Yahoo the closing price or Google it. I assume you are looking for market reactions to SEC filings? If you want to look at the closing stock price for the end of the period which the filing covers, it's like on the first page of the filing when the period (either quarterly or yearly) ends. This data is generally less useful, however, because it really is just another day in the market for the company. The actual release of the data to the public is more important.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "24f1e3c24307c4fa598090106e73df87", "text": "Not sure why this is being downvoted, SSRS, CR, or really any of the major reporting scenarios are designed for these types of calculations. Not only that but using them would enable one to just update the data/change the parameters to match the right date range and not have to spend hours doing repetitive calculations. Edit: yeah Access is basically GUI-SQL but depending on who will see this data (i.e OP's boss) you'll want it all prettied up.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0e762d578a09726a9f767ed87d82bde3", "text": "I know of no free source for 10 years historical data on a large set of companies. Now, if it's just a single company or small number that interest you, contact Investor Relations at the company(ies) in question; they may be willing to send you the data for free.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e8b3c1cca904587c28af58db32522868", "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.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ae140b6307f4e621e74d4a2184730378", "text": "Companies release their earnings reports over news agencies like Reuters, Dow Jones and Bloomberg before putting them on their website (which usually occurs a few minutes after the official dissemination of the report). This is because they have to make sure that all investors get the news at the same time (which is kind of guaranteed when official news channels are used). The conference call is usually a few hours after the earnings report release to discuss the results with analysts and investors.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2b91ea9ba00641d019c71d2986da2f19", "text": "the financial information is generally filed via SEDAR (Canada) or SEC (US) before the conference call with the investment community. This can take before either before the market opens or after the market closes. The information is generally distribute to the various newswire service and company website at the same time the filing is made with SEDAR/SEC.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "47d2401e8c9dcd835a24ea517a73bda6", "text": "I've seen this tool. I'm just having a hard time finding where I can just get a list of all the companies. For example, you can get up to 100 results at a time, if I just search latest filings for 10-K. This isn't really an efficient way to go about what I want.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3e16c1962a04806e7faffbe436927639", "text": "As a business analyst, a tool I've picked up recently is Tableau. It's a powerful reporting tool that can build powerful dashboards which are great for presentations. If you have an academic email, you can get a free licence otherwise I believe it's around $3000. The bank I work at pays contractors $100,000+ for a single dashboard which can be built by a single person in a few weeks with some basic knowledge in the tool. It's a very versatile tool, I have a friend that tracks his fitness data with a Fitbit and then creates visualizations to date with his friends. I use it to import massive data extracts from multiple sources and then link common share points to build visuals that are put into a dashboard and reported to executives monthly. It's very interactive and that's why the higher-ups love it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d581f5da4cbbd3a23e4b057cf1e03f0d", "text": "\"I think I found the answer, at least in my specific case. From the heading \"\"Questar/Dominion Resources Merger\"\" in this linked website: Q: When will I receive tax forms showing the stock and dividend payments? A: You can expect a Form 1099-B in early February 2017 showing the amount associated with payment of your shares. You also will receive a Form 1099-DIV by Jan. 31, 2017, with your 2016 dividends earned.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3f591963899eb4a32562e19cb18bcc65", "text": "\"Why do stock markets allow these differences in reporting? The IRS allows businesses to use fiscal calendars that differ from the calendar year. There are a number of reasons a company would choose do this, from preferring to avoid an accounting rush at end of year during holiday season, to aligning with seasonality for their profits (some like to have Q4 as the strongest quarter). Smaller businesses may prefer to keep the extra stress of year end closeout to a traditionally slower time for the business, and some just start their fiscal calendar when the company starts up. You'll notice the report dates are a couple weeks after fiscal quarter end, you would read it as \"\"three months ended...,\"\" so for Agilent, three months ended October 31, 2017, so August, September, October are their Q4 months.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3cf0e38a9490502c906628977ecba626", "text": "Under construction, but here's what I have so far: Schwab Data from 1970-2012: About.com data from 1980-2012:", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "6df12d93516abeff8fd5bd05200b87b4", "text": "\"Since you have no sales, I'd likely question how well could you determine the value of the company's assets in a reasonable fashion. You may be better to estimate sales and discount that back to a current valuation. For example, insurance companies could determine that if you wanted to be paid $x/month for the rest of your life, the present day value of that is $y. There are similar mechanisms for businesses but this does get tricky as the estimates have to be somewhat conservative and you have to be prepared for some other scenarios. For example, if you got the $200,000 then would you really never have to ask for more external equity financing in the future or is it quite likely that you'd want another infusion down the road? While you can mark it at $1,000,000 there will be questions about why that value that you'd have to answer and saying, \"\"Cause I like big round numbers,\"\" may not go over well. My suggestion is to consider what kind of sales will the company have over the next 5 years that you could work back to determine a current price. If you believe the company can have $5,000,000 in sales over the 5 years then it may make sense to place the current valuation of $1,000,000 on it. I wouldn't look too much into the money and time you've invested as that isn't likely to go over well with investors that just because you've put in what is worth $x, the business may or may not be worth that. The challenge is that without sales, it is quite difficult to get an idea of what is the company worth. If it makes billions, then it is worth a lot more than a company that never turns a profit. Another way to consider this is the question of what kind of economic output do you think you could do working here for the next 5 years? Could you do thousands of dollars of work, millions of dollars or just a few bucks? Consider how you want this to be seen where if you want some help look up episodes of TV shows like \"\"Dragon's Den\"\" or \"\"Shark Tank\"\" as these give valuations often as part of the pitch which is what you are doing.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e07f51ad632a2e6d294466c9ba25e6af", "text": "The value of a business without proven profits is really just a guess. But to determine what % ownership the VC takes some measure must be used. He is asking the OP to start the negotiations. So you start high - higher than you will settle for. The value of the business should always be WAY more the $$ you have put into it ... because you have also invested your time (which has an opportunity cost) and assumed huge risk that you will never get those $$ back. When you need the cash and only one person will give it to you, you are over a barrel. You either take the terms they offer, or you let the business collapse. So keep a show of strength and invent other funders. Or create a business plan showing that you can continue without their $$ (just at a smaller volume).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9d0de6281da77f43b6d511b19cad05f9", "text": "\"Putting a dollar amount on the valuation of a start up business is an art form that often has very little at all to do with any real numbers and more to do with your \"\"salesman\"\" abilities when talking with the VC. That said, there are a few starting points: First is past sales, the cost of those sales and a (hopefully) realistic growth curve. However, you don't have that so this gets harder. Do you have any actual assets? Machinery, computers, desks, patents, etc. Things that you actually own. If so, then add those in. If this is a software start-up, \"\"code\"\" is an asset, but without sales it's incredibly hard to put a value on it. The best I've come up with is \"\"How much would it cost for someone else to build it .. after they've seen yours\"\". Yes, you may have spent 5,000 hours building something but could someone else duplicate it, or at least the major parts, in 200 hours after seeing a demo? Use the lower number. If I was you, I'd look hard at my business plan. Hopefully you were as honest as you can be when writing it (and that it is as researched as possible). What is it going to take to get that first sale? What do you actually need to get there? (hint: your logo on the side of a building is NOT a necessary expense. Nor is really nice office space.) Once you have that first sale, what is the second going to take? Can you extrapolate out to 3 years? How many key members are there? How much is their contribution worth? At what point will you be profitable? Next is to look at risks. You haven't done this before, that's huge - I'm assuming simply because you asked this question. Another is competitors - hopefully they already exist because opening a new market is incredibly hard and expensive; on the flip side, hopefully there aren't that many because entering a crowded market is equally hard and expensive. Note: each are possible, but take radically different approaches and sums of money - and $200k isn't going to cut it no matter what it is you are selling. That said, competition should be able to at least point you in the direction of a price point and estimate for how long sales take. If any are publicly traded then you have additional info to help you set a valuation. Are there any potential regulatory or legal issues? What happens if a key member leaves, dies or is otherwise no longer available? Insurance only helps so much if the one guy that knows everything literally gets run over. God help you if this person likes to go skydiving. I bring risks up because you will have to surmount them during this negotiation. For example, asking for $200k with zero hard assets, while trying to sell software to government agencies assuming a 3 week sales cycle will have you laughed at for naivety. Whereas asking for $10m in the same situation, with a team that has governmental sales experience would likely work. Another big question is exit strategy: do you intend to IPO or sell to a competitor or a business in a related category? If selling, do you have evidence that the target company actually buys others, and if so, how did those deals work out? What did they look for in order to buy? Exit strategy is HUGE to a VC and they will want to make several multiples of their money back in a relatively short amount of time. Can you realistically support that for how much you are asking for? If not then going through an Angel group would be better. They have similar questions, but very different expectations. The main thing is that no one knows what your business is worth because it is 100% unproven after 2 years and is therefore a huge financial risk. If the money you are asking for is to complete product development then that risk factor just went up radically as you aren't even talking about sales. If the money is purely for the sales channel, then it's likely not enough. However if you know what it's going to take to get that first sale and have at least an educated idea on how much it's going to cost to repeat that then you should have an idea for how much money you want. From there you need to decide how much of the business it is worth to you to give up in order to get that money and, voila, you have a \"\"pre money valuation\"\". The real trick will be to convince the VC that you are right (which takes research and a rock solid presentation) and negotiating from there. No matter what offer a small percentage of the business for the money you want and realize you'll likely give up much more than that. A few things you should know: usually by year 3 it's apparent if a start-up is going to work out or not. You're in year 2 with no sales. That doesn't look good unless you are building a physical product, have a competent team with hard experience doing this, have patents (at least filed), a proven test product, and (hopefully) have a few pre-orders and just need cash to deliver. Although in that situation, I'd probably tell you to ask your friends and family before talking to a VC. Even kickstarter.com would be better. $200k just isn't a lot of money and should be very easy to raise from Friends or Angels. If you can't then that speaks volumes to an institutional VC. A plus is having two or three people financially invested in the company; more than that is sometimes a problem while having only 1 is a red flag. If it's a web thing and you've been doing this for 2 years with zero sales and still need another $200k to complete it then I'd say you need to take a hard look at what you've built and take it to market right now. If you can't do that, then I'd say it might be time to abandon this idea and move on as you'll likely have to give up 80%+ to get that $200k and most VCs I've run into wouldn't bother at that level. Which begs the question: how did the conversation with the VC start? Did you approach them or did they approach you? If the latter, how did they even find out about you? Do they actually know anything about you or is this a fishing expedition? If the latter, then this is probably a complete waste of your time. The above is only a rough guide because at the end of the day something is only worth what someone else is willing to pay. $200k in cash is a tiny sum for most VCs, so without more information I have no clue why one would be interested in you. I put a number of hard questions and statements in here. I don't actually want you to answer me, those are for you to think about. Also, none of this shouldn't be taken as a discouragement, rather it should shock you into a realistic viewpoint and, hopefully, help you understand how others are going to see your baby. If the VC has done a bit of research and is actually interested in investing then they will bring up all the same things (and likely more) in order to convince you to give up a very large part of it. The question you have to ask yourself is: is it worth it? Sometimes it is, often it's not.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "558928c78899ad68b8aeab5a78e0a0e7", "text": "\"When the VC is asking what your Pre-Money Valuation is, he's asking what percentage of shares his $200,000 will buy. If you say your company is worth $800K, then after he puts the money in, it will be worth $1M, and he will own 20% of all shares – you'll still own the remainder. So when the VC is asking for a valuation, what he really wants to know is how much of your company he's going to own after he funds you. Determining your pre-money valuation, then, is a question of negotiation: how much money will you need, how likely are you to require more money later (and thus dilute the VC's shares, or give up more of your own shares), how likely is your business to survive, and how much money will it make if it does survive? It isn't about the actual value of your business right now, as much as it is \"\"how much work has gone into this, and how successful can it be?\"\" The value is going to be a bit higher than you expect, because the work is already done and you can get to market faster than someone else who hasn't started yet. VCs are often looking for long shots – they'll invest in 10 companies, and expect 7 to fail, 2 to be barely-profitable, and the last one to make hilarious amounts of money. A VC doesn't necessarily want 51% of your company (you'll probably lose motivation if you're not in charge), but they'll want as much as they can get otherwise.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "dc61bab52d0f73aaebd7179bee102155", "text": "You will probably never see it. The startup at some point may start issuing dividends to the shareholders (which would be the owners, including you if you are in fact getting equity), but that day may never come. If they hire others with this method, you'll likely lose even that 5% as more shares are created. Think of inflation that happens when government just prints more money. All notes effectively lose value. I wouldn't invest either, most startups fail. Don't work for free on the vague promise of some future compensation; you want a salary and benefits. Equity doesn't put food on your table.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "639bc6d80c441eae03aacc9b5ee99b53", "text": "Relative valuation is always my go to. Reason being i can make any company a buy or sell by changing assumptions such as growth rate, discount rate ect with a DCF. Still a great exercise to complete on all investments. Also an RV will help you pick the best out of the group (hopefully) rather than take a stance on whether you can actually predict the future inputs ( no one can)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "62077bd6249e2f08079161e4588f0f94", "text": "\"Will the investment bank evaluate the worth of my company more than or less than 50 crs. Assuming the salvage value of the assets of 50 crs (meaning that's what you could sell them for to someone else), that would be the minimum value of your company (less any outstanding debts). There are many ways to calculate the \"\"value\"\" of a company, but the most common one is to look at the future potential for generating cash. The underwriters will look at what your current cash flow projections are, and what they will be when you invest the proceeds from the public offering back into the company. That will then be used to determine the total value of the company, and in turn the value of the portion that you are taking public. And what will be the owner’s share in the resulting public company? That's completely up to you. You're essentially selling a part of the company in order to bring cash in, presumably to invest in assets that will generate more cash in the future. If you want to keep complete control of the company, then you'll want to sell less than 50% of the company, otherwise you can sell as much or as little as you want.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d14fb27da79fc6cbf91391e62d5f4610", "text": "Ok so I used Excel solver for this but it's on the right track. Latest price = $77.19 Latest div = $1.50 3-yr div growth = 28% g = ??? rs = 14% So we'll grow out the dividend 3 years @ 28%, and then capitalize them into perpetuity using a cap rate of [rs - g], and take the NPV using the rs of 14%. We can set it up and then solve g assuming an NPV of the current share price of $77.19. So it should be: NPV = $77.19 = [$1.50 / (1+0.14)^0 ] + [$1.50 x (1+0.28)^1 / (1+0.14)^1 ] + ... + [$1.50 x (1+0.28)^3 / (1+0.14)^3 ] + [$1.50 x (1+0.28)^3 x (1+g) / (0.14-g) / (1+0.14)^4 ] Which gives an implied g of a little under 9%. Let me know if this makes sense, and definitely check the work...", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f70d373b1e48e9949d418ae128a1d8d9", "text": "You are wildly over-estimating your taxes. First, remember that your business expenses reduce your gross income. Second, remember that taxes are progressive, so your flat 35% only applies if you're already making a high salary that pushed you into the higher brackets of US and CA. I think the deeper problems are: 1) you are expecting a super early start-up (with no finished product) to pay you the same as a steady job, including health insurance, and 2) you are expecting Kickstarter to independently fund the venture. The best source of funding is yourself. If you believe in this venture and in your game design abilities, then pay for most of the costs out of your own savings. Cut your expenses to the extent you can. You may want to wander over to startups.SE to get more perspective and ideas on your business plan.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "92ee9cadaa14d9d89f6ca7d5aaa4a99e", "text": "\"There are some assumptions which can be made in terms of the flexibility you have - I will start with the least flexible assumption and then move to more flexible assumptions. If you must put down a number 1, your go-to for this(\"\"Change the start period to 1\"\"), is pretty good, and it's used frequently for other divide-by-zero calculations like kda in a video game. The problem I have with '1' is that it doesn't allow you to handle various scales. Some problems are dealt with in thousands, some in fractions, and some in hundreds of millions. Therefore, you should change the start period to the smallest significantly measurable number you could reasonably have. Here, that would take your example 0 and 896 and give you an increase of 89,500%. It's not a great result, but it's the best you can hope for if you have to put down a number, and it allows you to keep some of the \"\"meaning in the change.\"\" If you absolutely must put something This is the assumption that most answers have taken - you can put down a symbol, a number with a notation, empty space, etc, but there is going to be a label somewhere called 'Growth' that will exist. I generally agree with what I've seen, particularly the answers from Benjamin Cuninghma and Nath. For the sake of preservation - those answers can be summarized as putting 'N/A' or '-', possibly with a footnote and asterisk. If you can avoid the measurement entirely The root of your question is \"\"What do my manager and investors expect to see?\"\" I think it's valuable to dig even further to \"\"What do my manager and investors really want to know?\"\". They want to know the state of their investment. Growth is often a good measurement of that state, but in cases where you are starting from zero or negative, it just doesn't tell you the right information. In these situations, you should avoid % growth, and instead talk in absolute terms which mention the time frame or starting state. For example:\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9a78f3c9169feacf67c5604a515ba24d", "text": "I am an instructor who teaches Financial Modeling courses to investment bankers in NYC. Looking at the model, I do not see anything wrong with it. There are just too many assumptions. I would rather use the Multiple Value for the Terminal Value calculation, but, it will not make any significant differences. Some more thoughts : a) The author has used text book method for valuation, but, everyone improvises the text book method, hence, subjective evaluations. b) Oil and Gas valuation is quite a deep subject and every time we create models, industry experts come and big time change the inputs. We have no indication that the model is tested by industry experts (O&amp;G Operations experts) c) For matured companies like ARAMCO, I would prefer the DCF model as used and then parb (adjust) using comparables. I do not see that it has been done in the model. d) In some cases, investment experts would rather use 3 stage DCF model (5 years, next 10 years, next 20 years or so). It makes the model pretty complex, but, provides more accuracy. e) The revenue taken in the calculation is flat, instead, he should have taken the data from past 10 years and modeled the fluctuations. f) One of the biggest challenges we have faced in this sector is the accounting method full cost of successful effort. High CAPEX only occurs in one of the methods and depending on the company's maturity level, people may use different methods. More on this method in this link -http://www.investopedia.com/articles/fundamental-analysis/08/oil-gas.asp I am at wits to understand how the value will be more than 1 Trillion dollars in any case.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8399543fe9b611cc89a88cecf78f9c74", "text": "It's been awhile since my last finance course, so school me here: What is the market cap of a company actually supposed to represent? I get that it's the stock price X the # of shares, but what is that actually representing? Revenues? PV of all future revenues? PV of future cash flows? In any case, good write up. Valuation of tech stocks is quite the gambit, and you've done a good job of dissecting it for a layman.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4c1a37f69c6b8f12b0d2791e85a1aaf9", "text": "\"Working for a lot of startups, I have seen this cycle. Really it has little to do with making the IPO look good because of number of employees, and is more about making the IPO look good because of planning for the future. Many times an IPO is released, it will be valued at $1.00 (made up) and the market will soar and spike. Now stock shares are valued at $3.00. Great. Till after the dust settles a bit, and stocks are valued at $0.85. This is \"\"normal\"\" and good. It would be better if the stocks ended a little higher than their initial value, but... such is life. Now the initial value of the stock is made up of basically the value of the company's assets, and employees are part of those assets and its earning power. They are also a liability, but that has less impact on initial value than assets. Sales right after IPO are based on how well a company will do. Part of that is growth. So it looks nicer to say: \"\"We have 500 employees and have been growing by 20% per month.\"\" than to say \"\"We have 100 employees\"\". In other words, before IPO, employees may be hired to make the company look like it is growing. They may be hired because the budget is projected based on expected growth and expected valuation. After IPO, you get a concrete number. You have your budget. It may be more than you thought, or it may be less. In our example, the real budget (from capital), is only 28% of the entire projected budget, and 85% of the initial value. It's time to make some budget cuts. Also, normally, there is a period of adjustment, company wide, as a company goes from VC funding, \"\"here, have as much money as you want\"\", to \"\"real world\"\" funding, with stricter limits and less wiggle room.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5bd09952da9656e90f8489cbf956102a", "text": "There is no right and wrong answer to this question. What you and your business partner perceive as Fair is the best way to split the ownership of the new venture. First, regarding the two issues you have raised: Capital Contributions: The fact that you are contributing 90% of initial capital does not necessarily translate to 90% of equity. In my opinion, what is fair is that you transform your contributions into a loan for the company. The securitization of your contribution into a loan will make it easier to calculate your fair contribution and also compensate you for your risk by choosing whatever combination of interest income and equity you see suitable. For example, you might decide to split the company in half and consider your contributions a loan with 20%, 50% or 200% annual interest. Salary: It is common that co-founders of start-ups forgo their wages at the start of the company. I do not recommend that this forgone salary be compensated through equity because it is impossible to determine the suitable amount of equity to be paid. I suggest the translation of forgone wages into loans or preferred stocks in similar fashion to capital contribution Also, consider the following in deciding the best way to allocate equity between both of you and your partner Whose idea was it? Talk with you business partner how both of you value the inventor of the concept. In general, execution is more important but talking about how you both feel about it is good. Full-time vs. part-time: A person who works full time at the new venture should have more equity than the partner who is only a part-time helper. Control: It is important to talk about control and decision making of the company. You can separate the control and decision making of important decisions from ownership. You can also check the following article about this topic at http://www.forbes.com/sites/dailymuse/2012/04/05/what-every-founder-needs-to-know-about-equity/#726842f3668a", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cf8488ef41130233fcc63a7b933a6fdf", "text": "So, the price-earnings ratio is price over earnings, easy enough. But obviously earnings are not static. In the case of a growing company, the earnings will be higher in the future. There will be extra earnings, above and beyond what the stock has right now. You should consider the future earnings in your estimate of what the company is worth now. One snag: Those extra earnings are future money. Future-money is an interesting thing, it's actually worth less than present-money- because of things like inflation, but also opportunity cost. So if you bought $100 in money that you'll have 20 years from now, you'd expect to pay less than $100. (The US government can sell you that money. It's called a Series EE Savings Bond and it would cost you $50. I think. Don't quote me on that, though, ask the Treasury.) So you can't compare future money with present-money directly, and you can't just add those dollars to the earnings . You need to compute a discount. That's what discounted cash-flow analysis is about: figuring out the future cash flow, and then discounting the future figuring out what it's worth now. The actual way you use the discount rate in your formula is a little scarier than simple division, though, because it involves discounting each year's earnings (in this case, someone has asserted a discount of 11% a year, and five years of earnings growth of 10%). Wikipedia gives us the formula for the value of the future cash flow: essentially adding all the future cash flows together, and then discounting them by a (compounded) rate. Please forgive me for not filling this formula out; I'm here for theory, not math. :)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d49d3b30cf6d71a768d8297d38ddcaf3", "text": "Hi all Started my MBA studies recently. We have a simulation project and I've taken the VP Finance Role as I didn't have much experience in this and wanted to learn more. Unfortunately I don't have accounting until next semester, so I'm trying to make up the cap with my career experience so far as an engineer + youtube tutorials. I built a discounted cashflow model. I'm trying to now determine the amount of loan to take in my first year of business. Basically the equity financing doesn't cover our first year capital expenditure, let alone any other costs. My question is how do I determine what an appropriate loan amount is to take. My first thoughts are enough to cover my capital expenses + 1st half of the year operating expenses before I start seeing a revenue. Right now my balance sheet would lead me to believe I have a 0.52 Debt Ratio and 1.23 Debt-to-Equity ratio. Is that ok?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1423a5b34e0ba05d007a623a2b02f8ec", "text": "To calculate you take the Price and divide it by the Earnings, or by the Sales, or by the Free Cash Flow. Most of these calculations are done for you on a lot of finance sites if the data is available. Such sites as Yahoo Finance and Google Finance as well as my personal favorite: Morningstar", "title": "" }, { "docid": "70591461ef9fce7e7b32b7b259bf14f6", "text": "The quant aspect '''''. This is the kind of math I was wondering if it existed, but now it sounds like it is much more complex in reality then optimizing by evaluating different cost of capital. Thank you for sharing", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0e09e504da831f2a596ce992d0226259", "text": "\"For every buyer there is a seller. That rule refers to actual (historical) trades. It doesn't apply to \"\"wannabees.\"\" Suppose there are buyers for 2,000 shares and sellers for only 1,000 at a given price, P. Some of those buyers will raise their \"\"bid\"\" (the indication of the price they are willing to pay) above P so that the sellers of the 1000 shares will fill their orders first (\"\"sold to the highest bidder\"\"). The ones that don't do this will (probably) not get their orders filled. Suppose there are more sellers than buyers. Then some sellers will lower their \"\"offer\"\" price to attract buyers (and some sellers probably won't). At a low enough price, there will likely be a \"\"match\"\" between the total number of shares on sale, and shares on purchase orders.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "b9ea9cf5c85d2271ea0ef94a55a5a5bf", "text": "Unfortunately it is not possible for an ordinary person to become an accredited investor without a career change. Gaining any legal certification in investments typically require sponsorship from an investment company (which you would be working for). There are reasons why these kinds of investments are not available to ordinary people directly, and you should definitely consult an RIA (registered investment adviser) before investing in something that isn't extremely standardized (traded on an major exchange). The issue with these kinds of investments is that they are not particularly standardized (in terms of legal structure/settlement terms). Registered investment advisers and other people who manage investments professionally are (theoretically) given specific training to understand these kinds of non-standard investments and are (theoretically) qualified to analyze the legal documentation of these, make well informed investment decisions, and make sure that their investors are not falling into any kind of pyramid scheme. There are many many kinds of issues that can arise when investing in startups. What % of the company/ the company's profits are you entitled to? How long can the company go without paying you a dividend? Do they have to pay you a dividend at all? How liquid will your investment in the company be? Unfortunately it is common for startups to accept investment but have legal restrictions on their investors ability to sell their stake in the business, and other non-standard contract clauses. For example, some investment agreements have a clause which states that you can only sell your stake in the business to a person who already owns a stake in the business. This makes your investment essentially worthless - the company could run for an exponential amount of time without paying you a dividend. If you are not able to sell your stake in the company you will not be able to earn any capital gains either. The probability of a startup eventually going public is extremely small.. so in this scenario it is likely you will end up gaining no return investment (though you can be happy to know you helped a company grow!) Overall, the restrictions for these kinds of investments exist to protect ordinary folks from making investing their savings into things that could get them burned. If you want to invest in companies on FundersClub build a relationship with an RIA and work with that person to invest your money. It is easier, less risky, and not all that more expensive :)", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "0b4d041501b889e30080b61b2a31216c", "text": "You could certainly look at the holdings of index funds and choose index funds that meet your qualifications. Funds allow you to see their holdings, and in most cases you can tell from the description whether certain companies would qualify for their fund or not based on that description - particularly if you have a small set of companies that would be problems. You could also pick a fund category that is industry-specific. I invest in part in a Healthcare-focused fund, for example. Pick a few industries that are relatively diverse from each other in terms of topics, but are still specific in terms of industry - a healthcare fund, a commodities fund, an REIT fund. Then you could be confident that they weren't investing in defense contractors or big banks or whatever you object to. However, if you don't feel like you know enough to filter on your own, and want the diversity from non-industry-specific funds, your best option is likely a 'socially screened' fund like VFTSX is likely your best option; given there are many similar funds in that area, you might simply pick the one that is most similar to you in philosophy.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d19f5919f9a91c4219b84859430d0127", "text": "Ok, that's totally different then. The legislation that you were mentioning doesn't apply to prop shops that trade derivatives. If you want to end up in the equities world, then a place that requires those licenses that will pay for it doesn't seem like a bad deal.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f954722876bfa4acb9331c336341e5db", "text": "As other answers have pointed out, professional real estate investors do own residential investment properties. However, small residential units typically are not owned by professional real estate investors as your experience confirms. This has a fairly natural cause. The size of the investment opportunity is insufficient to warrant the proper research/due diligence to which a large investment firm would have to commit if it wanted to properly assess the potential of a property. For a small real estate fund managing, say, $50 MM, it would take 100 properties at a $500K valuation in order to fully invest the funds. This number grows quickly as we decrease the average valuation to reflect even smaller individual units. Analogously, it is unlikely that you will find large institutional investors buying stocks with market caps of $20 MM. They simply cannot invest a large enough portion of total AUM to make the diligence make economic sense. As such, institutional real estate money tends to find its way into large multi-family units that provide a more convenient purchase size for a fund.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9c2486bf10b899839d0c29cb649f96a3", "text": "Yes, but only if they're looking for investors. You would need to contact them directly. Unless you're looking to invest a significant sum, they may not be interested in speaking with you. (Think at least 6 figures, maybe 7 depending on their size and needs). This is otherwise known as being a Venture Capitalist. Some companies don't want additional investors because the capital isn't yet needed and they don't want to give up shares in the profit/control. Alternatively, you could try and figure out which investment groups already have a stake in the company you're interested in. If those companies are publicly traded, you could buy stocks for their company with the expectation that their stock price will increase if the company you know of does well in the long run.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "24b0b013a3385858eda59f1359a4f523", "text": "You can't do what you would like to do, unless your business has another, unrelated investor or is willing to invest an equal amount of funds + .01 into a corporation which will employ you. You will then need to set up a self-directed IRA. Additionally, you will need a trustee to account for all the disbursements from your IRA.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ad563586bd99c80f736b254758cb0f82", "text": "You can put it in a CD, or use a CD investment service like http://www.jumbocdinvestments.com/ (no affiliation).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8730be753a1406fab4444dcbb40296f3", "text": "Here are the SEC requirements: The federal securities laws define the term accredited investor in Rule 501 of Regulation D as: a bank, insurance company, registered investment company, business development company, or small business investment company; an employee benefit plan, within the meaning of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, if a bank, insurance company, or registered investment adviser makes the investment decisions, or if the plan has total assets in excess of $5 million; a charitable organization, corporation, or partnership with assets exceeding $5 million; a director, executive officer, or general partner of the company selling the securities; a business in which all the equity owners are accredited investors; a natural person who has individual net worth, or joint net worth with the person’s spouse, that exceeds $1 million at the time of the purchase, excluding the value of the primary residence of such person; a natural person with income exceeding $200,000 in each of the two most recent years or joint income with a spouse exceeding $300,000 for those years and a reasonable expectation of the same income level in the current year; or a trust with assets in excess of $5 million, not formed to acquire the securities offered, whose purchases a sophisticated person makes. No citizenship/residency requirements.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7b9e1b14c98aa0813d39fed38251fb95", "text": "\"My advice would be to invest that 50k in 25% batches across 4 different money markets. Batch 1: Lend using a peer-to-peer account - 12.5k The interest rates offered by banks aren't that appealing to investors anymore, at least in the UK. Peer to peer lending brokers such as ZOPA provide 5% to 6% annual returns if you're willing to hold on to your investment for a couple of years. Despite your pre-conceptions, these investments are relatively safe (although not guaranteed - I must stress this). Zopa state on their website that they haven't lost any money provided from their investors since the company's inception 10 years ago, and have a Safeguard trust that will be used to pay out investors if a large number of borrowers defaulted. I'm not sure if this service is available in Australia but aim for an interest rate of 5-6% with a trusted peer-to-peer lender that has a strong track record. Batch 2: The stock market - 12.5k An obvious choice. This is by far the most exciting way to grow your money. The next question arising from this will likely be \"\"how do I pick stocks?\"\". This 12.5k needs to be further divided into 5 or so different stocks. My strategy for picking stock at the current time will be to have 20% of your holdings in blue-chip companies with a strong track record of performance, and ideally, a dividend that is paid bi-anually/quarterly. Another type of stock that you should invest in should be companies that are relatively newly listed on the stock market, but have monopolistic qualities - that is - that they are the biggest, best, and only provider of their new and unique service. Examples of this would be Tesla, Worldpay, and Just-eat. Moreover, I'd advise another type of stock you should purchase be a 'sin stock' to hedge against bad economic times (if they arise). A sin stock is one associated with sin, i.e. cigarette manufacturers, alcohol suppliers, providers of gambling products. These often perform good while the economy is doing well, but even better when the economy experiences a 2007-2008, and 2001-dotcom type of meltdown. Finally, another category I'd advise would be large-cap energy provider companies such as Exxon Mobil, BP, Duke Energy - primarily because these are currently cheaper than they were a few months ago - and the demand for energy is likely to grow with the population (which is definitely growing rapidly). Batch 3: Funds - 12.5k Having some of your money in Funds is really a no-brainer. A managed fund is traditionally a collection of stocks that have been selected within a particular market. At this time, I'd advise at least 20% of the 12.5k in Emerging market funds (as the prices are ridiculously low having fallen about 60% - unless China/Brazil/India just self destruct or get nuked they will slowly grow again within the next 5 years - I imagine quite high returns can be had in this type of funds). The rest of your funds should be high dividend payers - but I'll let you do your own research. Batch 4: Property - 12.5k The property market is too good to not get into, but let's be honest you're not going to be able to buy a flat/house/apartment for 12.5k. The idea therefore would be to find a crowd-funding platform that allows you to own a part of a property (alongside other owners). The UK has platforms such as Property Partner that are great for this and I'm sure Australia also has some such platforms. Invest in the capital city in areas as close to the city's center as possible, as that's unlikely to change - barring some kind of economic collapse or an asteroid strike. I think the above methods of investing provide the following: 1) Diversified portfolio of investments 2) Hedging against difficult economic times should they occur And the only way you'll lose out with diversification such as this is if the whole economic system collapses or all-out nuclear war (although I think your investments will be the least of your worries in a nuclear war). Anyway, this is the method of investing I've chosen for myself and you can see my reasoning above. Feel free to ask me if you have any questions.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "74aa3ca9abe89674b3ab4253d0438286", "text": "\"I'm surprised at the tone of the answers to this question! Trading with insider information is corruption and encourages fraud. As in many areas, there's an ethical line where behavior the gap between \"\"ok\"\" and \"\"illegal\"\" or unethical is thin. The classic local government insider information example is when the local councilman finds out that a highway exit is being constructed in an area that consists mostly of farmland. Knowing this, he buys out the farmers at what they think is a premium, and turns around for 10x profit a few months later. In that context, do you think that the councilman acting on that insider information is committing a crime or ethical lapse? Most people say yes. Even in this case, the line is thin. If the same councilman has his finger on the pulse of growth patterns in the area, and realizes that the terrain makes a certain area a prime candiate for a highway and exit, buying up land would not be criminal -- but it would be risky as it creates a perception that he is abusing his position.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ed91e01409c3ff8b6efaf6c7585bd2d5", "text": "I know some of the large banks have small regional offices in Calgary for Oil &amp; Gas IBD. I'm American but from what I gather it's pretty tough to get into, so you'd need a top school for finance and network your butt off. Outside of that, you'll need to cold-email, cold-call, and try to get your foot in the door any way possible. [Send out hundreds of emails](https://www.mergersandinquisitions.com/investment-banking-email-template/) and follow up with the 5% that respond. Read [this](https://www.mergersandinquisitions.com/investment-banking-canada/), [this](https://www.mergersandinquisitions.com/investment-banking-calgary/), [this](https://www.mergersandinquisitions.com/investment-banking-vancouver-korea/), and [this](https://www.mergersandinquisitions.com/commodities-banking-western-canada/) to get started.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1ac350ec5c33d3492610d3b014ba7a37", "text": "\"Yes, you can. You could either go through brokerages like Ameritrade or fund companies like Fidelity or Vanguard. Yes there are minimums depending on the fund where some retail funds may waive a minimum if you sign up for an \"\"Automatic Investment Plan\"\" and some of the lower cost funds may have higher initial investment as Vanguard's Admiral share class is different from Investor for example.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "64c8523399599ed83c91cf32321369d1", "text": "Thanks for the tip, I know of one or two privately backed incubators I can approach but have already reached out to local government for access to their funding streams. I just want to make sure I cover all of my bases and seek as much of the available capital as I can. Is there a good way to approach/meet private investors?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "001bd856c730fa6fc8e49f45937cb647", "text": "Here's a start at a high level: I have a few friends who have made a killing on GLD, and write options to make money off of the investment without incurring the capital gains penalties for selling. That's a little out of my comfort zone though.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "52683fac8adacb6501cef0f04b28178d", "text": "The best way I know of is to join an investment club. They club will act like a mutual fund, investing in stocks researched and selected by the group. Taking part in research and presenting results to the group for peer review is an excellent way to learn. You'll learn what is a good reason to invest and what isn't. You'll probably pick both winners and losers. The goal of participation is education. Some people learn how to invest and continue happily doing so. Others learn how to invest in single stocks and learn it is not for them.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cafd80031a7f88125c0fa2b02d28426a", "text": "I work for an investment group in Central Asia in private equity/project investment. We use SPV and collateralized convertible loans to enter a project, we issue the loan at our own commercial bank. For each industry, the exact mechanisms vary. In most outcomes, we end up in control of some very important part of the business, and even if we have minority shares on paper, no decision is made w/o our approval. For example, we enter cosntruction projects via aquisiton of land and pledging the land as equity for an SPV, then renting it to the project operator. Basically, when you enter a business, be in control of the decisions there, or have significant leverage on the operations. Have your own operating professionals to run it. Profit.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "cda11e35b80b973c71db4cee3b0ca0eb", "text": "Perhaps an example will help make it more clear. Any given year: Revenue: 200K, profit 60K You get 40K in profit, plus any salary, he gets 20K Next year you attract the attention of a competitor and they offer and you accept to sell. You would get 100% of the proceeds. This is kind of a bad deal for him as you could easily play accounting tricks to diminish the company's profits and reduce his pay. For the given example, you could pay yourself a 60K bonus and reduce the profit to zero and eliminate his compensation. There should probably be a revenue metric included in his compensation. Edit: It is really nice to hear you have a desire to treat this person fairly. Honesty in business is necessary for long term success. I would simply make his salary dependent upon the revenue he generates. For example, lets say you can make a widget for 4 and you expect to sell them for 10. Your profit would be 6, and with the suggested split he would receive $2, you $4. Instead I would have him receive like 15% of the revenue generated This allows for some discounts for bulk items and covers the cost of processing sales. It also allows him to share revenue with his staff. Alternatively you could also do a split. Perhaps 7.5% of revenue and 10% of profit.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "6cf789155692e1686257b5c57e274203", "text": "It depends. If the investor bought newly-issued shares or treasury shares, the company gets the money. If the investor bought shares already held by the owner, the owner gets the money. A 100% owner can decide how to structure the sale. Yet, the investor may only be willing to buy shares if the funds increase the company's working capital.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8e99f14ffed8f409ea84518036cfbd1d", "text": "You have only sold 200 shares for $4.75 from those bought for $3.15. So your profit on those 200 shares is $1.60 per share or $320 or 51%. From that you have 110 shares left that cost you $3.15 and 277 shares that cost you $3.54. So the total cost of your remaining shares is $1,327.08 (110 x $3.15 + 277 x $3.54). So your remaining shares have a average cost of $3.429 per share ($1,327.08/387). We don't know what the current share price is as you haven't provided it, nor do we know what the company is, so lets say that the current price is $5 (or that you sell the remaining 387 shares for $5 per share). Then the profit on these 387 shares would be $1.571 per share or $607.92 or 46%. Your total profit would then be $320 + $ 607.92 = $927.92 or 47% (note that this profit neglects any brokerage or other fees, as you have not provided any). Edit due to new info. provided in question With the current share price at $6.06 then the profit on these 387 shares would be $2.631 per share or $1018.20 or 77%. Your total profit would then be $320 + $1018.20 = $1338.20 or 75% (note that this profit neglects any brokerage or other fees, as you have not provided any).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "18ce58c8902a64eca070d530a060fd2a", "text": "From my understanding, only A and B are shareholders, and M is a managing entity that takes commission on the profit. Assuming that's true. At the start of the project, A contributes $500,000. At this point, A is the sole shareholder, owning 100% of the project that's valued at $500,000. The real question is, did the value of the project change when B contributed 3 month later. If the value didn't change, then A owns 33.33%, and B owns 66.66%. Assuming both A and B wants to pay themselves with the $800,000 profit, then A gets a third of that, and B gets the rest. However, if at the time of B's contribution, both parties agreed that the pre-money of the project has changed to $1 million, then B owns half the project valued at 2 million post-money. Then the profit would be split half way.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "19f18ebdd0d55ba406566aa94f714891", "text": "You can either borrow money... credit card, line of credit, re-finance your home, home equity line of credit, loan, mortgage, etc. Or you have other invest in your company as equity. They will contribute $X to get Y% of your company and get Z% of the profits. Note amount of profits does not necessarily have to equate to percentage owned. This makes sense if they are a passive investor, where they just come up with the money and you do all the work. Also voting rights in a company does not have to equate to percentage owned either. You can also have a combination of equity and debt. If you have investors, you would need to figure out whether the investor will personally guarantee the debt of your company - recourse vs non-recourse. If they have more risk, they will want more of a return. One last way to do it is crowdfunding, similar to what people do on Kickstarter. Supporters/customers come up with the money, then you deliver the product. Consulting practices do something similar with the concept of retainers. Best of luck.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c802c5a8765525396bb86c842ec26502", "text": "I know the general principles of acting as a director in a company, and am familiar with the rights of shareholders. In the last ten years or so, I believe Australia has introduced legislation that strongly punishes those directors who do not act in a professional or prudent manner. While I will of course attempt to fulfill the duties required - I am new to conducting business at this level, and am concerned about mistakenly breaching some unknown rule/law and being subject to repercussions that I just don't know about. As you have already stated, the key to being director in a company is the additional responsibility. Legally you can be held in breach. At the same time you will be able to influence your decision much better if you a director and thus safeguard your interest. If you are only a shareholder, you cannot be held responsible for decision by company, individual malpractice may still be applicable, but this is less of a risk. However over a period of time, the board can take certain decision that may marginalize your holding in the company.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6acae10d472a8031ad28e8865b0fd7b6", "text": "Everyone that owns a share of stock in a company is part owner. Some just own more than others. According to Apple's latest proxy statement he owns 5.5 million shares of the 914 million shares outstanding. So he owns approximately 0.6% of the company. If he owned more than 50% of the company's outstanding stock he would effectively control the board of directors by being able to pick whoever he wanted. Then he would control the company. Very few publicly traded companies are that way. Most have sold off parts of the company to the public in order to raise cash for the company and make their investment more liquid.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "00d21b3746e0c66b39ff8538ccd42fcd", "text": "\"Owning more than 50% of a company's stock normally gives you the right to elect a majority, or even all of a company's (board of) directors. Once you have your directors in place, you can tell them who to hire and fire among managers. There are some things that may stand in the way of your doing this. First, there may be a company bylaw that says that the directors can be replaced only one \"\"class\"\" at a time, with three or four \"\"classes.\"\" Then it could take you two or three years to get control of the company. Second, there may be different classes of shares with different voting rights, so if e.g. \"\"A\"\" shares controlled by the founding family gives them ten votes, and \"\"B\"\" shares owned by the other shareholders, you may have a majority of total shares and be outvoted by the \"\"A\"\" shares.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4f5e2b5519a30ae098566977ca938227", "text": "Is my understanding correct? It's actually higher than that - he exercised options for 94,564 shares at $204.16 and sold them for $252.17 for a gain of about $4.5 Million. There's another transaction that's not in your screenshot where he sold the other 7,954 shares for another $2 Million. What do executive directors usually do with such profit? It's part of his compensation - it's anyone's guess what he decided to do with it. Is it understood that such trade profits should be re-invested back to the company? No - that is purely compensation for his position (I'm assuming the stock options were compensation rather then him buying options in the open market). There generally is no expectation that trading profits need to go back into the company. If the company wanted the profits reinvested they wouldn't have distributed the compensation in the first place.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8fc999cb123d1fab5d8a6d8bcfd798b5", "text": "I believe you can easily make tresholds for what constitute a partial owner. If I work for GE and buy a share, I'm not exactly a partial owner. Anything under 10% for companies making, I don't know, less than 50 Mil in revenue, you're an employee. Larger companies, 5%. That's just an idea, could be refined but, yeah...", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3657167e43d1c4e588fe82cd759ef78f", "text": "If a company is public, and they record a 2016 profit of 100mil. Say there is shareholder A and shareholder B who are both wealthy and own 25% each of the company. Say the remaining 50% of shares are owned by a number of funds/small time investors. So 2016 profits are 100mil, lets say there is a dividend. Can the company still award a larger share of profits to the two big shareholders? I.e. say 50 mil of the profits go into dividend payments and another 20 mil as retained earnings to be reinvested into future projects, can the remaining 30 mil of profits be split and given to shareholders A and B?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "928598067c978d7ba6b404631e154c70", "text": "The person holding the majority of shares can influence the decisions of the company. Even though the shareholder holds majority of the shares,the Board of Directors appointed by the shareholders in the Annual General Meeting will run the company. As said in the characteristics of the company,the owners and the administrators of the company are different. The shareholder holding majority of the shares can influence the business decisions like appointing the auditor,director etc. and any other business decisions(not taken in the ordinary business) that are taken in the Annual General Meeting.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8b82fb1b960b241080e16afd01ce6551", "text": "\"Each company has X shares valued at $Y/share. When deals like \"\"Dragon's Den\"\" in Canada and Britain or \"\"Shark Tank\"\" in the US are done, this is where the company is issuing shares valued at $z total to the investor so that the company has the funds to do whatever it was that they came to the show to get funding to do, though some deals may be loans or royalties instead of equity in the company. The total value of the shares may include intangible assets of course but part of the point is that the company is doing an \"\"equity financing\"\" where the company continues to operate. The shareholders of the company have their stake which may be rewarded when the company is acquired or starts paying dividends but that is a call for the management of the company to make. While there is a cash infusion into the company, usually there is more being done as the Dragon or Shark can also bring contacts and expertise to the company to help it grow. If the investor provides the entrepreneur with introductions or offers suggestions on corporate strategy this is more than just buying shares in the company. If you look at the updates that exist on \"\"Dragon's Den\"\" or \"\"Shark Tank\"\" at least in North America I've seen, you will see how there are more than a few non-monetary contributions that the Dragon or Shark can provide.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9847099de65fe2eb86b26c98f0d179cb", "text": "I don't know about the liquidation. The capital doesn't evaporate, its source just becomes the corporation itself. The corporation becomes the sole shareholder and acts at the behest of the board. The board then decides both board matters and shareholder matters. Once I talked that through, I realized no one would do this. If the board is in complete control, why clump the ownership together. The directors would be better served by clearly delineating their ownership interests by purchasing shares directly.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a3721fd666e6ea8920304e2b973bef1c", "text": "\"The part that I find confusing is the loan/stock hybridization. Why would the investor be entitled to a 30% share if he's also expecting to be getting paid back in full? This is the part that's making me scratch my head. I can understand giving equity and buying out later. I can understand giving equity with no expectation of loan repayment. I can understand loan repayment without equity. I can even understand collateralizing the loan with equity. I can not understand how \"\"zeroing out\"\" the loan still leaves him with a claim on 30% of the equity. Would this be more of a good will gesture as a way to thank the investor for taking a chance? Please forgive any naivety in my questions.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c526e569e2ae563e14b933f146c30364", "text": "\"Companies normally do not give you X% of shares, but in effect give you a fixed \"\"N\"\" number of shares. The \"\"N\"\" may translate initially to X%, but this can go down. If say we began with 100 shares, A holding 50 shares and B holding 50 shares. As the startup grows, there is need for more money. Create 50 more shares and sell it at an arranged price to investor C. Now the percentage of each investor is 33.33%. The money that comes in will go to the company and not to A & B. From here on, A & C together can decide to slowly cut out B by, for example: After any of the above the % of shares held by B would definitely go down.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "9cdaa61a2421adce6c2d2297ddbb8541", "text": "\"I write software myself and was involved in a couple of start ups. One failed, another was wildly successful, but I did not receive much in compensation. The former I received stock, but since it failed, it was worthless anyway. There should be compensation for your time in addition to equity in a company. Any agreement needs be in writing. In the later situation I was told to expect about a 17%/year bonus, but nothing could be guaranteed. Translation: \"\"It will never happen.\"\" It didn't, but I meet my lovely wife there so I have that for a bonus. Agreements need to address the bad things can happen. What happens if one of you is no longer interested in continuing? What happens if one of you die, or addicted to something? What happens if one of you gets thrown in jail or disabled? Right now you are full of optimism and hope, but bad things happen. Cover those things while you still like each other. It might be enough to have a good salary, and some stock options. You man not be interested in running the day to day business. Most of all good luck, I wish you all the best!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2ff2c8d04f80b637da2b51de86a1c16e", "text": "First, determine the workload he will expect. Will you have to quit your other work, either for time or for competition? How much of your current business will be subsumed into his business, if any? Make sure to understand what he wants from you. If you make an agreement, set it in writing and set some clear expectations about what will happen to your business (e.g. it continues and is not part of your association with the client). Because he was a client for your current business, it can blur the lines. Second, if you join him, make sure there is a business entity. By working together for profit, you will have already formed a partnership for tax purposes. Best to get an entity, both for the legal protection and also for the clarity of law and accounting. LLCs are simplest for small ventures; C corps are useful if you have lots of early losses and owners that can't use them personally, or if you want to be properly formed for easy consumption by a strategic. Most VCs and super-angels prefer everybody be a straight C. Again, remember to define, as necessary, what you are contributing to be an owner and what you are retaining (your original business, which for simplicity may already be in an entity). As part of this process, make sure he defines the cap table and any outstanding loans. Auntie June and Cousin Steve might think their gifts to him were loans or equity purchases; best to clear this issue up early before there's any more money in it. Third, with regard to price, that is an intensely variable question. It matters what the cap table looks like, how early you are, how much work he's already done, how much work remains to be done, and how much it will pay off. Also, if you do it, expect to be diluted by other employees, angels, VCs, other investors, strategics, and so on. Luckily, more investors usually indicates a growing pie, so the dilution may not be at all painful. But it should still be on your horizon. You also need to consider your faith in your prospective partner's ability to run the business and to be a trustworthy partner (so you don't get Zuckerberg'd), and to market the business and the product to customers and investors. If you don't like the prospects, then opt for cash. If you like the business but want to hedge, ask for compensation plus equity. There are other tricks you could use to get out early, like forced redemption, but they probably wouldn't help either because it'd sour your relationship or the first VC or knowledgeable angel to come along will want you to relinquish that sort of right. It probably comes down to a basic question of your need for cash, his willingness to let you pursue outside work (hopefully high) and your appraisal of the business' prospects.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "daeaf3811eb82190b130466943791faa", "text": "Being a CTO is different than freelancing, obviously. You have to ask yourself what you would more prefer to do! My initial recommendation would be to receive your normal freelance compensation for the freelance work you do AND separately deal with the issue of being a CTO. At some point you will cease to be this project's freelancer should you become its CTO. Then again, by becoming the CTO immediately you should be able to negotiate a larger share of the company. Granted, my opinions should not be considered legal or financial advice and you should consult a professional before making any decisions. Ja ja ja ;)", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "a27d47d6874f98fefe7e802e6ffcff4d", "text": "Very good point. However, I would say stability. Say I could just continue doing this one the side of my regular job, couldn't I do both? Edit: I don't know why I keep getting down voted... I'm literally just asking valid questions.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fa9290fe5300a24c04c6f8ab01f18f66", "text": "Sounds you need to read up on S corp structures. I think this would benefit you if you generate income even after you physically stopped working which is incomes from membership fees, royalties % of customer revenue, middle man etc... Under the Scorp, you as the sole member must earn a wage that fair and at current market value. You pay social security and Medicare on this wage. The interesting thing here is that an Scorp can pay out earning dividends without having to pay payroll taxes but the catch is that you, as the sole employee must earn a fair wage. As for paying the other member you may want to look into 1099 contract work plus a finders fee. The 1099 hourly wage does not require you to pay Medicare and SS. The common fee I'm used to is 5% of gross invoice. Then you would pay her an hourly wage. The company then bills these hours multiplied by 2 or 3 (or whatever you think is fair) to the client. Deduct expenses from this and that's your profit. Example. Contractor brings Client A which is estimated as a 100 hour project with $100 cost in supplies and requires 2 hours of your time @ $40/hr. You quote 100 hours @ $50 to client, client agrees and gives you down payment. You then present the contract work to your contractor, they complete the work in 100 hours and bill you at $25. You pay your contractor 2500 plus the 5% ($250) and your company earns $2070 (5000 - 2500 - 100-80) And you'll earn $80 minus the payroll tax. Then at the end of the quarter or year or however you want to do earning payouts your LLC- Scorp will write you a check for $2070 or whatever earning % you want to take. This is then taxed at your income tax bracket. One thing to keep in mind is what is preventing this other person from becoming your competition? A partnership would be great motivation to try and bring in as much work under the LLC. But if you start shafting people then they'll just keep the work and cut you out.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6491f0618e362b2216da7c27c43dc412", "text": "\"Hello! First of all, I think it's great you're asking the community for help. Asking for help when you need it is a sign of strength and self-awareness of your own limitations (which we all have, even the smartest business people ask questions, in fact they ask the most questions). I'm wrapping up year 2 of doing what you're trying to do and am finally seeing real traction. I am a bit older than you and started out on my own 7 years after grad school, but I have learned a lot and don't mind sharing. Here's some things you might find useful. * Never work for free (working for \"\"equity\"\" or working for \"\"exposure\"\" is working for free). People who offer you this because you're just starting out are parasites looking to sell your talents but not pay for them. The only thing you can take away from attempts to do this is that your talents are in demand, which is good! * Never sell yourself short: would you rather do 10 websites for a $1000 each or do 1 website for $10000? You'll be doing a lot of projects in the middle, but one very important thing to bear in mind is that one $10000 website is a lot less work and may make you the same amount of money (or more) overall. * In the beginning, maybe you think you need to build a portfolio. But you'd be surprised how many prospects don't care what's in your portfolio and in fact never look at the portfolio, which leads me to the most important bit of advice: * Learn to sell yourself. YOU are your company's first and main product. Learn to sell yourself (as the smart kid, future Fortune 500 CEO who stays up all night getting things done, etc) * Always aim high in your proposals. You'd be surprised how many people don't negotiate at all. That being said, always put something in your proposal that is a good idea but it beyond what their asking for. If they ask you to come down in price, remove this feature and come down a little bit. * Develop an ability to read how interested a prospect is in your services before you spring the price on them. At your age, I was waiting tables. This helped me to be able to read a customer to determine which waiter they wanted me to be: the attentive one, the high class one, the friend, or the quiet servile. Consider taking on a side job to help you develop this skill. * As I said above, some prospects will sign on the line without negotiating. You might even take two proposals with you into a meeting with a prospect, one priced high and one low, and present the version that matches their interests. Go high if they need something \"\"right now\"\". * Remember you are your company's first product. This means also that your time is the company's first commodity. Be open to other things. I have a background in mathematics and am most capable as a software developer and a web developer. But I also help other companies sell and support physical products not at all related to technology. Because it's highly profitable, I do it. * When you're a one person business selling your time at the highest price is the name of the game. But growing your business will require the help of others. I found it helpful to first network with other like minded people and split project money according to skill level and time commitment on a per project basis. This will allow you to take on bigger projects. * But growing the company will eventually require you to hire (or contract) someone at a far lower pay rate than what you're bringing in. The laws of supply and demand require you to do this as a business person if you're to grow the business (so that the business has money beyond what you're being paid). This is where the extra money comes from: selling the time of others at a higher price than you're paying them. Be conscious of this. Everyone you work with is not going to be your friend. * Make your website awesome. It doesn't have to be a work of art, but let it reflect the seriousness with which you approach your customers' projects. Make sure there are no grammatical errors. Find a website of someone highly successful who's doing what you're doing and emulate it. You don't have to have a portfolio starting out. Your website is your first portfolio item, and if it's awesome, prospects will think you'll do the same for them. Good luck! I'm sure I'm not the only one here who thinks your early developed entrepreneurship is going to take you far.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "94146b4330555818feda573df22bae17", "text": "\"It's a tough thing to do. You should look for a salaried position. Your freelance skills will be much better received, if you've worked for a couple of companies doing programming full time. Nothing beats working at it all day long for a few years. If you're set on being freelance, write some utility that will be popular, and submit it to Freshmeat.net. Now that's asking a lot. Those on the Web looking for programmers will most likely want you to work for 'sweat equity'. That is, a share in the company for you labour. In other words \"\"FREE\"\". I've done my share of those, and if you're just getting into this, you should steer away from them. You may hit the jackpot, but you won't sleep for the next few years ;-)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1ce866c17821f50b358ce7a34ae8918e", "text": "\"This is such a common question here and elsewhere that I will attempt to write the world's most canonical answer to this question. Hopefully in the future when someone on answers.onstartups asks how to split up the ownership of their new company, you can simply point to this answer. The most important principle: Fairness, and the perception of fairness, is much more valuable than owning a large stake. Almost everything that can go wrong in a startup will go wrong, and one of the biggest things that can go wrong is huge, angry, shouting matches between the founders as to who worked harder, who owns more, whose idea was it anyway, etc. That is why I would always rather split a new company 50-50 with a friend than insist on owning 60% because \"\"it was my idea,\"\" or because \"\"I was more experienced\"\" or anything else. Why? Because if I split the company 60-40, the company is going to fail when we argue ourselves to death. And if you just say, \"\"to heck with it, we can NEVER figure out what the correct split is, so let's just be pals and go 50-50,\"\" you'll stay friends and the company will survive. Thus, I present you with Joel's Totally Fair Method to Divide Up The Ownership of Any Startup. For simplicity sake, I'm going to start by assuming that you are not going to raise venture capital and you are not going to have outside investors. Later, I'll explain how to deal with venture capital, but for now assume no investors. Also for simplicity sake, let's temporarily assume that the founders all quit their jobs and start working on the new company full time at the same time. Later, I'll explain how to deal with founders who do not start at the same time. Here's the principle. As your company grows, you tend to add people in \"\"layers\"\". The top layer is the first founder or founders. There may be 1, 2, 3, or more of you, but you all start working about the same time, and you all take the same risk... quitting your jobs to go work for a new and unproven company. The second layer is the first real employees. By the time you hire this layer, you've got cash coming in from somewhere (investors or customers--doesn't matter). These people didn't take as much risk because they got a salary from day one, and honestly, they didn't start the company, they joined it as a job. The third layer are later employees. By the time they joined the company, it was going pretty well. For many companies, each \"\"layer\"\" will be approximately one year long. By the time your company is big enough to sell to Google or go public or whatever, you probably have about 6 layers: the founders and roughly five layers of employees. Each successive layer is larger. There might be two founders, five early employees in layer 2, 25 employees in layer 3, and 200 employees in layer 4. The later layers took less risk. OK, now here's how you use that information: The founders should end up with about 50% of the company, total. Each of the next five layers should end up with about 10% of the company, split equally among everyone in the layer. Example: Two founders start the company. They each take 2500 shares. There are 5000 shares outstanding, so each founder owns half. They hire four employees in year one. These four employees each take 250 shares. There are 6000 shares outstanding. They hire another 20 employees in year two. Each one takes 50 shares. They get fewer shares because they took less risk, and they get 50 shares because we're giving each layer 1000 shares to divide up. By the time the company has six layers, you have given out 10,000 shares. Each founder ends up owning 25%. Each employee layer owns 10% collectively. The earliest employees who took the most risk own the most shares. Make sense? You don't have to follow this exact formula but the basic idea is that you set up \"\"stripes\"\" of seniority, where the top stripe took the most risk and the bottom stripe took the least, and each \"\"stripe\"\" shares an equal number of shares, which magically gives employees more shares for joining early. A slightly different way to use the stripes is for seniority. Your top stripe is the founders, below that you reserve a whole stripe for the fancy CEO that you recruited who insisted on owning 10%, the stripe below that is for the early employees and also the top managers, etc. However you organize the stripes, it should be simple and clear and easy to understand and not prone to arguments. Now that we have a fair system set out, there is one important principle. You must have vesting. Preferably 4 or 5 years. Nobody earns their shares until they've stayed with the company for a year. A good vesting schedule is 25% in the first year, 2% each additional month. Otherwise your co-founder is going to quit after three weeks and show up, 7 years later, claiming he owns 25% of the company. It never makes sense to give anyone equity without vesting. This is an extremely common mistake and it's terrible when it happens. You have these companies where 3 cofounders have been working day and night for five years, and then you discover there's some jerk that quit after two weeks and he still thinks he owns 25% of the company for his two weeks of work. Now, let me clear up some little things that often complicate the picture. What happens if you raise an investment? The investment can come from anywhere... an angel, a VC, or someone's dad. Basically, the answer is simple: the investment just dilutes everyone. Using the example from above... we're two founders, we gave ourselves 2500 shares each, so we each own 50%, and now we go to a VC and he offers to give us a million dollars in exchange for 1/3rd of the company. 1/3rd of the company is 2500 shares. So you make another 2500 shares and give them to the VC. He owns 1/3rd and you each own 1/3rd. That's all there is to it. What happens if not all the early employees need to take a salary? A lot of times you have one founder who has a little bit of money saved up, so she decides to go without a salary for a while, while the other founder, who needs the money, takes a salary. It is tempting just to give the founder who went without pay more shares to make up for it. The trouble is that you can never figure out the right amount of shares to give. This is just going to cause conflicts. Don't resolve these problems with shares. Instead, just keep a ledger of how much you paid each of the founders, and if someone goes without salary, give them an IOU. Later, when you have money, you'll pay them back in cash. In a few years when the money comes rolling in, or even after the first VC investment, you can pay back each founder so that each founder has taken exactly the same amount of salary from the company. Shouldn't I get more equity because it was my idea? No. Ideas are pretty much worthless. It is not worth the arguments it would cause to pay someone in equity for an idea. If one of you had the idea but you both quit your jobs and started working at the same time, you should both get the same amount of equity. Working on the company is what causes value, not thinking up some crazy invention in the shower. What if one of the founders doesn't work full time on the company? Then they're not a founder. In my book nobody who is not working full time counts as a founder. Anyone who holds on to their day job gets a salary or IOUs, but not equity. If they hang onto that day job until the VC puts in funding and then comes to work for the company full time, they didn't take nearly as much risk and they deserve to receive equity along with the first layer of employees. What if someone contributes equipment or other valuable goods (patents, domain names, etc) to the company? Great. Pay for that in cash or IOUs, not shares. Figure out the right price for that computer they brought with them, or their clever word-processing patent, and give them an IOU to be paid off when you're doing well. Trying to buy things with equity at this early stage just creates inequality, arguments, and unfairness. How much should the investors own vs. the founders and employees? That depends on market conditions. Realistically, if the investors end up owning more than 50%, the founders are going to feel like sharecroppers and lose motivation, so good investors don't get greedy that way. If the company can bootstrap without investors, the founders and employees might end up owning 100% of the company. Interestingly enough, the pressure is pretty strong to keep things balanced between investors and founders/employees; an old rule of thumb was that at IPO time (when you had hired all the employees and raised as much money as you were going to raise) the investors would have 50% and the founders/employees would have 50%, but with hot Internet companies in 2011, investors may end up owning a lot less than 50%. Conclusion There is no one-size-fits-all solution to this problem, but anything you can do to make it simple, transparent, straightforward, and, above-all, fair, will make your company much more likely to be successful. The above awesome answer came from the Stack Exchange beta site for startups, which has now closed. I expect that this equity distribution question (which is strongly tied to personal finance) will come up more times in the future so I have copied the content originally posted. All credit for this excellent answer is due to Joel Spolsky, a moderator for the Startups SE beta site, and co-founder of Stack Exchange.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3f088acfd5fcc4198a9c0950ba1711b3", "text": "\"If you business is incorporated, it's up to the two of you how to do it. Typically, you will have the company write cheques (or make transfers, whatever) to each of the humans: If you want to say that each of you gets a salary of 80% of the revenue you bring in, and then tweak things with bonuses, you can. If one of you is contributing more to marketing and awareness and less to revenue, then you may prefer to pay you each the same even though the revenue you bring are different. It's up to you - it's quite literally your business. When you're not incorporated, then for tax purposes you split the income and the expenses according to your ownership share. If that doesn't seem fair to you, then a partnership is probably not as useful to you as being incorporated. In general, it's better to be incorporated once you're past any initial phase in which the business is losing money for tax purposes (acquiring depreciable assets) and the partners have taxable income from elsewhere (day jobs, or at least income from the earlier part of the year before starting the business.) I would recommend that the \"\"partnership\"\" phase of the business be very short. Get incorporated and get a shareholder agreement.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4286585f14be963a8f314ca32f310036", "text": "\"This is actually quite a complicated issue. I suggest you talk to a properly licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State). Legal advice (from an attorney licensed in your State) is also highly recommended. There are many issues at hand here. Income - both types of entities are pass-through, so \"\"earnings\"\" are taxed the same. However, for S-Corp there's a \"\"reasonable compensation\"\" requirement, so while B and C don't do any \"\"work\"\" they may be required to draw salary as executives/directors (if they act as such). Equity - for S-Corp you cannot have different classes of shares, all are the same. So you cannot have 2 partners contribute money and third to contribute nothing (work is compensated, you'll be getting salary) and all three have the same stake in the company. You can have that with an LLC. Expansion - S-Corp is limited to X shareholders, all of which have to be Americans. Once you get a foreign partner, or more than 100 partners - you automatically become C-Corp whether you want it or not. Investors - it would be very hard for you to find external investors if you're a LLC. There are many more things to consider. Do not make this decision lightly. Fixing things is usually much more expensive than doing them right at the first place.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e0011d1c9d452a858e46b0056fe52fcd", "text": "I mean some VCs focus on technology companies, that's a sector focus, but a very broad one. Are you saying you don't want to be limited to one sector? Also keep in mind that series B investments are much more expensive then A rounds, just because there is more proof and less risk. I know of some angel investors that invest by size rather than industry, maybe you could partner up with them. All depends on how much capital you have/ how much involvement you want to have with the company.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "851d7afd9275dd990fccef28368d64ff", "text": "\"The issues are larger than taxes. If one of you receives the check, then breaks off 25% of it for themselves and sends three checks out to each of you that will be indicated on that person's taxes. You three will then all recognize your portion of the income on your taxes and it's all settled. It's no big deal, it's a bit rag-tag but it'll get the job done. I've done little ad-hoc partnership work with people this way and it's not a problem. This is why you should really be more formal. What if this entity contracting you guys sues you? Who has the liability, if only one of you was paid? What if the money is sent to one of you and that person dies before paying you? What if you all get another client? What if this contracting entity has another project? The partnership needs to have the liability. The partnership needs to receive the money. The partnership needs to be named on whatever contract you all sign. The partnership can be a straight partnership, or maybe the four of you take a 25% stake in an LLC or Inc arrangement. Minimally, you should sit down with your partners so everyone knows everyone else's responsibilities, and you should write it all down. It probably sounds like overkill, and I'm sure your partners are you buddies and \"\"we're tight and nothing bad could come between us.\"\" I've done some partnership work with more than one friend, we've always been fine. Some ventures are successful, some aren't; I'm still very good friends with all of them. Writing things down manages expectations and when money starts moving around, everyone is happier when everyone has a solid expectation of who gets what.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d441c483fe7ce59e0a61f1fbcb071287", "text": "Does your wife perform solo or in association with other actor/actresses and other volunteers? The latter arrangement sounds more like an unincorporated association or a partnership, which might be a bit freer to match the revenue and expenses. By grinding through the proper procedures, it might be possible to get official non-profit status for it, as well. Ask a professional.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dfbd71984ce3632baec4675987b94844", "text": "what do you mean by abnormal amount of risk on day to day operations? and upfront ill more than likely need quite a bit of capital. as far as partnership I'd be the sole owner for now. unless I find a better option along the way. also thank you for all your help.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5a97a5835511e682032ec0ed8c64e6eb", "text": "These new block chain coins with their smart contracts seem to be heading in that direction but I'd like someone to walk me through how two or more people with varying amounts of contributions to the organization can keep it all organized. One partner contributes money while the other contributes time and assets. How do you determine a value of each persons contribution? Do you convert each persons contributions to shares or coins?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c2fe5a2fd10180b48792906009b272fc", "text": "I am a freelancer based in Europe and I want to tell you: - if you are a freelancer, then you INVOICE your Swizzerland based client The word salary is improper. - So your client will DEDUCE the invoice from its taxes, and NOT pay income tax on top of that invoice. Because invoice = expense. So, ONLY YOU pay income tax in India. Your client pays no tax at all, not in India, not in Swizzerland. As you are a freelancer and not employee, the company has no obligation to pay employer taxes for you. A company has financial benefits from working with a freelancer.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "62cb72936394f010e237eaa95e4e05e5", "text": "Awesome ending. You are forgiven for partying. And the web start-up lifestyle comes with its own baggage. Nothing like working long hours to implement some feature 1 customer hinted because any money is important money to crush that creative spirit.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cb44aa9c88eed2b53e5cbd2e480982bf", "text": "If you are in a position to have information that will impact the shares of a stock or index fund and you use that information for either personal gain or to mitigate the losses that you would have felt then it is insider trading. Even if in the end your quiet period passes with little or no movement of the stocks in question. It is the attempt to benefit from or the appearance of the attempt to benefit from inside information that creates the crime. This is the reason for the quiet periods to attempt to shield the majority of the companies employees from the appearance of impropriety, as well as any actual improprieties. With an index you are running a double edged sword because anything that is likely to cause APPLE to drop 10% is likely to give a bump to Motorola, Google, and its competitors. So you could end up in jail for Insider trading and lose your shirt on a poor decision to short a Tech ETF on knowledge that will cause Apple to take a hit. It is certainly going to be harder to find the trade but the SEC is good at looking around for activity that is inconsistent with normal trading patterns of individuals in a position to have knowledge with the type of market impact you are talking about.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "bc53a3856d0f7baf0a4ed7744243a7f5", "text": "\"FX trading platforms are not used for exchanging money, they are used for trading currencies. \"\"I know there are cheaper services like transferwise, charging about 0.5 %, but there is little/no control over the exchange rate, you just get the rate at the time of execution.\"\" With FX trading you don't have control of the exchange rate either, just like the share market, FX markets are determined by supply and demand of one currency over an other. So an individual does not have control over the exchange rate but will just get the rate at the time of the trade being executed.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "68e8dd4cb04f33ac12a48e82504d96dc", "text": "If you wanted to spend money in another country, a specialist credit card would be the most cost-effective way. Near-spot exchange rate, zero-loading, no/low ATM fees. Likewise a pre-paid debit card would also allow for money transfer across borders. If this is the right situation, FOREX trading platforms are overkill to achieve a valid solution.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "1cfa763eb7329a1cea601b1c91dda9c7", "text": "\"In short, yes. By \"\"forward selling\"\", you enter into a futures contract by which you agree to trade Euros for dollars (US or Singapore) at a set rate agreed to by both parties, at some future time. You are basically making a bet; you think that the dollar will gain on the Euro and thus you'd pay a higher rate on the spot than you've locked in with the future. The other party to the contract is betting against you; he thinks the dollar will weaken, and so the dollars he'll sell you will be worth less than the Euros he gets for them at the agreed rate. Now, in a traditional futures contract, you are obligated to execute it, whether it ends up good or bad for you. You can, to avoid this, buy an \"\"option\"\". By buying the option, you pay the other party to the deal for the right to say \"\"no, thanks\"\". That way, if the dollar weakens and you'd rather pay spot price at time of delivery, you simply let the contract expire un-executed. The tradeoff is that options cost money up-front which is now sunk; whether you exercise the option or not, the other party gets the option price. That basically creates a \"\"point spread\"\"; you \"\"win\"\" if the dollar appreciates against the Euro enough that you still save money even after buying the option, or if the dollar depreciates against the Euro enough that again you still save money after subtracting the option price, while you \"\"lose\"\" if the exchange rates are close enough to what was agreed on that it cost you more to buy the option than you gained by being able to choose to use it.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "68307d5be9ffcdcde08545453139e73a", "text": "\"Buying physical gold: bad idea; you take on liquidity risk. Putting all your money in a German bank account: bad idea; you still do not escape Euro risk. Putting all your money in USD: bad idea; we have terrible, terrible fiscal problems here at home and they're invisible right now because we're in an election year. The only artificially \"\"cheap\"\" thing that is well-managed in your part of the world is the Swiss Franc (CHF). They push it down artificially, but no government has the power to fight a market forever. They'll eventually run out of options and have to let the CHF rise in value.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "71e219616902d8413d4e308625b6c570", "text": "The only advantage of changing all your money now to the new currency is that you might get a better conversion rate now than later, so you get more of the new currency and you may pay a lower percentage fee for changing a larger sum of money. However, regarding the better conversion rate - you will not know this except with hindsight. The disadvantage of changing all at once is that if you have changed too much and need to change back to your own currency or a third currency, you will be charged fees and lose on the conversion rate twice. If you know how long you are going to be in the new country, say 12 months, maybe start by converting an amount you think you will be spending in a month. If you spend more then you can change a bit more the next month, or if you spend less change less the next month. If you find you are spending similar amounts for the next month or so, then you can budget on the amount you may be spending for the remainder of your stay and then convert this amount over. If you have a little left over at the end of your stay maybe reward yourself with something or buy a present for someone special back at home. If you need a little more, just convert this amount in the last month or so.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9baaf39656cae04a080059718b623e3a", "text": "Actually, yes. Two parties can write a contract and specify how money will change hands, it's called a swap. It's not unusual to write a contract that mimics an existing financial instrument. However, there are disadvantages to both sides to trading a swap rather than a more standard, liquid instrument, so usually it won't happen unless there's an excellent reason.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ac0ce3b2e0c026f80b68a29b373f2481", "text": "Any time you are optimizing a portfolio, the right horizon to use for computing the statistics you will use for optimization (expected return, covariance, etc.) will be the same as your rebalance/trading frequency. If you expect your trading strategy to trade once a day, you should use daily data for optimization. Ditto for monthly or quarterly. If at all possible you should use statistics across the board that are computed at the same frequency as your trading. Regarding currency pricing, I see no reason you can't take the reported prices and convert them to whatever currency you want using that day's foriegn exchange rate. Foreign exchange rates are available for free at the Fed and elsewhere. Converting prices from one currency to another is not rocket science. Since you are contemplating putting actual money behind this, note that using data to compute statistics is less reliable for lower statistical moments. The mean (expected return) is the first moment, so using historical returns is extremely unreliable at predicting future returns. The variances and covariances are second moments, they are better. Skewness and kurtosis, yet better. The fact that the expected return can't reliably be estimated from past returns is the major downfall of the Markowitz method (resulting portfolios are often very crazy and will depend critically on the data period you use to set them up). There are approaches to fixing this, such as Black-Litterman's (1992) method, but they get complicated fast.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e5488cb152533b6023509b909b183eec", "text": "If you're interested in slower scale changes, one option is to use indexes that value a common commodity in different currencies such as the Big Mac Index. If a Big Mac costs more in AUD but stays the same in USD, then AUD have gone up.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "170473bd8e884ff4f8835a20e2c6cc1b", "text": "Disregarding leverage and things alike, I would like to know what's the difference between opening a position in Forex on a pair through a broker, for example, and effectively buy some currency in a traditional bank-to-bank transition The forex account may pay or charge you interest whereas converting your currency directly will not. Disregarding leverage, the difference would be interest.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "eda543db876b5d150a730688db867bef", "text": "This is called currency speculation, and it's one of the more risky forms of investing. Unless you have a crystal ball that tells you the Euro will move up (or down) relative to the Dollar, it's purely speculation, even if it seems like it's on an upswing. You have to remember that the people who are speculating (professionally) on currency are the reason that the amount changed, and it's because something caused them to believe the correct value is the current one - not another value in one direction or the other. This is not to say people don't make money on currency speculation; but unless you're a professional investor, who has a very good understanding of why currencies move one way or the other, or know someone who is (and gives free advice!), it's not a particularly good idea to engage in it - while stock trading is typically win-win, currency speculation is always zero-sum. That said, you could hedge your funds at this point (or any other) by keeping some money in both accounts - that is often safer than having all in one or the other, as you will tend to break even when one falls against the other, and not suffer significant losses if one or the other has a major downturn.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c8331b83bbbd50d34c1de1b1590da0a5", "text": "The currency market, more often referred as Forex or FX, is the decentralized market through which the currencies are exchanged. To trade currencies, you have to go through a broker or an ECN. There are a lot's of them, you can find a (small) list of brokers here on Forex Factory. They will allow you to take very simple position on currencies. For example, you can buy EUR/USD. By doing so, you will make money if the EUR/USD rate goes up (ie: Euro getting stronger against the US dollar) and lose money if the EUR/USD rate goes down (ie: US dollar getting stronger against the Euro). In reality, when you are doing such transaction the broker: borrows USD, sell it to buy EUR, and place it into an Euro account. They will charge you the interest rate on the borrowed currency (USD) and gives you the interest and the bought currency (EUR). So, if you bought a currency with high interest rate against one with low interest rate, you will gain the interest rate differential. But if you sold, you will lose the differential. The fees from the brokers are likely to be included in the prices at which you buy and sell currencies and in the interest rates that they will charge/give you. They are also likely to gives you big leverage to invest far more than the money that you deposited in their accounts. Now, about how to make money out of this market... that's speculation, there are no sure gains about it. And telling you what you should do is purely subjective. But, the Forex market, as any market, is directed by the law of supply and demand. Amongst what impacts supply and demands there are: Also, and I don't want to judge your friends, but from experience, peoples are likely to tell you about their winning transaction and not about their loosing ones.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4bebec0aa0906edd17ddf97af3fa375b", "text": "What is the point of this? Can't I achieve the exact same effect and outcome by exchanging currency now and put that amount of USD in a bank account to gain some interest, then make the payment from one year from now? This is for companies, not individuals. Companies usually take loans, because they think they can make more money (e.g. 10%*) than the interest on the loan (e.g. 5%*). Putting money on a bank account to earn interest there would give them even less (e.g. 1%*). So with your option, instead of earning 10%* interest, they'd earn 1%* interest. If the cost of the currency forward is less than these 9%* difference, the forward saves them money. If they have excess cash and they don't know how to invest that money, your option may be preferable *Simple numbers chosen for simplicity, not accuracy.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a41efbee5c826099835787e354a813b0", "text": "I just tried doing that on my PP which is in the Netherlands, I have added a USD bank account (from my dutch bank) and they sent the verification amount in Euros, I called the bank and wonder why they didn't let me choose account currency they said it's not possible and if I cashout Dollars that I have in my PP (cause we usually do international business so we set it to dollars) it will be changed to Euros, So we decided to keep the dollars in account to pay our bills instead of getting ripped off by PayPal in xchange rates.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d8d1a7ed650bccb30e84e1f254b57628", "text": "\"Currencies that are pegged or fixed require that foreign currencies are held by the central issuer at a proportional amount. This is analogous to having a portfolio of currencies that the central bank issues shares from - in the form of its own currency. We will continue with this analogy, if the central bank says these \"\"shares\"\" are worth $1, but the underlying components of the portfolio are worth $0.80 and decreasing, then it is expensive for the central bank to maintain its peg, and eventually they will have to disregard the peg as people start questioning the central bank's solvency. (People will know the $1 they hold is not really worth what the central bank says it is, because of the price changes people experience in buying goods and services, especially when it comes to imports. Shadow economies will also trade using a currency more reflective of labor, which happens no matter what the government's punishments are for doing so). Swiss National Bank (central bank) did this in early 2015, as it experienced volatility in the Euro which it had previously been trying to keep it's currency pegged to. It became too expensive for it to keep this peg on its own. The central bank can devalue its currency by adjusting the proportions of the reserve, such as selling a lot of foreign currency X, buying more of currency Y. They can and do take losses doing this. (Swiss National Bank is maintaining a large loss) They can also flood their economy with more of their currency, diluting the value of each individual 1 dollar equivalent. This is done by issuing bonds or monetizing goods and services from the private sector in exchange for bonds. People colloquially call this \"\"printing money\"\" but it is a misnomer in this day and age where printers are not relevant tools. The good and service goes onto the central bank's balance book, and the company/entity that provided the service now has a bond on its book which can be immediately sold to someone else for cash (another reading is that the bond is as good as cash). The bond didn't previously exist until the central bank said it did, and central banks can infinitely exchange goods and services for bonds. Bond monetization (also called Quantitative Easing) is practiced by the Federal Reserve in the United States, Bank of Japan, European Central Bank and now the Central Bank of the Republic of China\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "505ca7e221596c6b8fd0ab08c320d875", "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.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ccef86861b5918e8ad02925f6b4ea9c4", "text": "Is there not some central service that tracks current currency rates that banks can use to get currency data? Sure. But this doesn't matter. All the central service can tell you is how much the rate was historically. But the banks/PayPal don't care about the historical value. They want to know the price that they'll pay when they get around to switching, not the last price before the switch. Beyond that, there is a transaction cost to switching. They have to pay the clearinghouse for managing the transaction. The banks can choose to act as a clearinghouse, but that increases their risk. If the bank has a large balance of US dollars but dollars are falling, then they end up eating that cost. They'll only take that risk if they think that they'll make more money that way. And in the end, they may have to go on the currency market anyway. If a European bank runs out of US dollars, they have to buy them on the open market. Or a US bank might run out of Euros. Or Yen. Etc. Another problem is that many of the currency transactions are small, but the overhead is fixed. If the bank has to pay $5 for every currency transaction, they won't even break even charging 3% on a $100 transaction. So they delay the actual transaction so that they can make more than one at a time. But then they have the risk that the currency value might change in the meantime. If they credit you with $97 in your account ($100 minus the 3% fee) but the price actually drops from $100 to $99, they're out the $1. They could do it the other way as well. You ask for a $100 transaction. They perform a $1000 transaction, of which they give you $97. Now they have $898 ($1000 minus the $5 they paid for the transaction plus the $3 they charged you for the transaction). If there's a 1% drop, they're out $10.98 ($8.98 in currency loss plus a net $2 in fees). This is why banks have money market accounts. So they have someone to manage these problems working twenty-four hours a day. But then they have to pay interest on those accounts, further eating into their profits. Along with paying a staff to monitor the currency markets and things that may affect them.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9440f6a0c8c21dafac732d0fc850d408", "text": "It depends on the currency pair since it is much harder to move a liquid market like Fiber (EURUSD) or Cable (GBPUSD) than it is to move illiquid markets such as USDTRY, however, it will mostly be big banks and big hedge funds adjusting their positions or speculating (not just on the currency or market making but also speculating in foreign instruments). I once was involved in a one-off USD 56 million FX trade without which the hedge fund could not trade as its subscriptions were in a different currency to the fund currency. Although it was big by their standards it was small compared with the volumes we expected from other clients. Governments and big companies who need to pay costs in a foreign currency or receive income in one will also do this but less frequently and will almost always do this through a nominated bank (in the case of large firms). Because they need the foreign currency immediately; if you've ever tried to pay a bill in the US denominated in Dollars using Euros you'll know that they aren't widely accepted. So if I need to pay a large bill to a supplier in Dollars and all I have is Euros I may move the market. Similarly if I am trying to buy a large number of shares in a US company and all I have is Euros I'll lose the opportunity.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "b9cf1a9d3d8234f8adeeb92f3ab10905", "text": "\"During Graham's career, gold and currency were the same thing because of the gold standard. Graham did not advise investing in currencies, only in bonds and stocks, the latter only for intelligent speculation. Graham died a couple of years after Nixon closed the gold window, ending the gold standard. Gold may be thought of as a currency even today, as endowments and other investors use it as a store of value or for diversification of risks. However, currency or commodities investing does not seem Graham-like. How could you reliably estimate intrinsic value of a currency or commodity, so that you can have a Graham-like margin of safety after subtracting the intrinsic value from the market value? Saying that gold is \"\"clearly underpriced in today's market\"\" is just hand-waving. A Graham analysis such as \"\"net net\"\" (valuing stocks by their current tangible assets net of all liabilities) is a quantitative analysis of accounting numbers audited by CPAs and offers a true margin of safety.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "0ff176eb7c422c1fc2cc9399e488d3c1", "text": "I think what the person meant to say is that Gold is not a one stop solution. There's nothing wrong with having Gold in an otherwise diversified portfolio but you need to be aware about the potential downsides: The problem with gold is that its value nowadays depends mainly on investor confidence, or the lack of it (actual demand for gold cannot explain the rise in value gold had after the crisis). If people are afraid the world and currencies with it will go to hell, the gold price will go up. Why? Because if currencies seize to exist, Gold will still be accepted. It can replace currencies. What many people tend to forget: let's consider the extreme example and currencies really cease to exist and all hell breaks lose. What good are gold bars at the bank, or even at home, for that matter? You'll be better off with gold coins to use in barter and to pay off marauders. But that's not about investing anymore, that's survivalism.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "07ab45d648477b203edf198498035159", "text": "\"&gt;Because selling gold and buying dollars has an effect on the market: it reduces the value of gold, and increases the value of dollars. Ah, but with all the business you'd do in gold, you'd constantly be increasing the value of gold. Think of it! I'm pretty sure that most people want to be paid in dollars not simply because of the fact that their taxes have to be paid in it, but because of it's universality. Not everyone has a use for a sack of barley, or a fish, or some gold dust. But you can buy whatever you want with an amount of dollars. &gt;As the value of gold increases over time, the government taxes the increased value as \"\"capital gains tax\"\". It's only taxed at a 15.5% rate, IIRC. You'd probably come out ahead.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "da970b33c88bfcf180ba2e428bd05130", "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.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e982406e455a21ee8d4ffd1cd6d92687", "text": "The article fails to mention that if Paul has invested like this since the 1970s, in keeping with his long-held economic views, then he'd have lost in a big way. The gold bugs of the 70s got killed over the following two decades.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e99561df31a588a4c5bc1887c090010d", "text": "\"Invest in gold. Maybe will not \"\"make\"\" money but at least preserve the value.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6772c658a9ce2de9ba987109f7782764", "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.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "53797b151ae0daf43edf5e83c4fc64bd", "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.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dd8e5ca4888ff871a3b76ce481bb3bd5", "text": "\"First of all, bear in mind that there's no such thing as a risk-free investment. If you keep your money in the bank, you'll struggle to get a return that keeps up with inflation. The same is true for other \"\"safe\"\" investments like government bonds. Gold and silver are essentially completely speculative investments; over the years their price tends to vary quite wildly, so unless you really understand how those markets work you should steer well clear. They're certainly not low risk. Repeatedly buying a property to sell in a couple of years time is almost certainly a bad idea; you'll end up paying substantial transaction fees each time that would wipe out a lot of the possible profit, and of course there's always the risk that prices would go down not up. Buying a property to keep - and preferably live in - might be a decent option once you have a good deposit saved up. It's very hard to say where prices will go in future, on the one hand London prices are very high by historical standards, but on the other hand supply is likely to remain severely constrained for years to come. I tend to think of a house as something that I need one of for the rest of my life, and so in one sense not owning a house to live in is a gamble that house prices and rents won't go up substantially. If you own a house, you're insulated from changes in rent etc and even if prices crash at least you still have somewhere to live. However that argument only works really well if you expect to keep living in the same area under most circumstances - house prices might crash in your area but not elsewhere.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1780c956b6e79156a96d46a6b5e1ce97", "text": "\"Remind him that, over the long-term, investing in safe-only assets may actually be more risky than investing in stocks. Over the long-term, stocks have always outperformed almost every other asset class, and they are a rather inflation-proof investment. Dollars are not \"\"safe\"\"; due to inflation, currency exchange, etc., they have some volatility just like everything else.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "23b6f3349410a9cd46532acb781c86ea", "text": "The point of what you heard is likely that gold is thought by some to hold its value well, when the money market would provide negative interest rates. These negative interest rates are a sign of deflation, where cash money is worth more in the future than it is today. Normally, under inflation, cash money is worth less in the future than it is today. Under 'normal' circumstances where inflation exists, interest paid by the bank on money held there generally keeps up with inflation + a little bit extra. Now, we are seeing many banks offering interest rates in the negatives, which is an acknowledgement of the fact that money will be worth more in the future than it is today. So in that sense, holding physical gold 'fights' deflation [or, negative interest rates], in the same way that holding physical cash does [because if you hold onto a $10k bundle of bills, in 10 years you can walk into a bank and it will be worth $10k in future dollars - which in a deflationary market would be more than it is worth today]. Some view gold as being better at doing this than just holding cash, but that discussion gets into an analysis of the value of paper money as a currency, which is outside the scope of this answer. Suffice to say, I do not personally like the idea of buying gold as an investment, but some do, and partly for this reason.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "952ac70b676849106cfb5454fc5c0eba", "text": "He's made a profit on gold the same way you make money on any commodity, because demand (largely as an inflation hedge) has outpaced supply. It has nothing to do with using gold as a currency (which no one is doing.) I'm not saying gold can't have value as money, but that's not where we're at right now. Dollars are accepted to settle transactions all over the world, and inflation is negligible. A lot of speculators buying gold that sits in vaults is not the same thing as a return to specie based currency.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1f82eef360c642b80cbd1041bd8dcd02", "text": "\"Gold is not an investment. Gold is a form of money. It and silver have been used as money much longer than paper. Paper money is a relatively recent invention (less than 350 years old) with a horrible track record of preserving wealth. When I exchange my paper US dollars for gold I'm exchanging one form of money for another. US dollars, or US Federal Reserve Notes to be more precise, can be printed ad nauseam by one bank that is totally private and is never audited. Keeping all of your savings in US dollars is ignoring history, it is believing the US Federal Reserve has your best interest in mind, it is hoping that somehow things will be different this time, it is believing that the US dollar will somehow magically be the first fiat currency to last a person's lifetime. TIPS may seem like a good hedge against inflation. However, the government offering TIPS is also the same government that is calculating the inflation rate used to adjust TIPS. What a great deal. If you do some research you discover that the method for calculating the consumer price index is always \"\"modified\"\" since it is always found to over estimate inflation. It is never found to under estimate inflation. Imagine that. Here is a chart showing the inflation rate as if it were calculated the same way as it was calculated in 1980. Buying any government debt is also a way to guarantee you or your children will be taxed in the future since the government will have to obtain the money from someone to pay back bonds. It's like voting for future taxes.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1f175d50b874cfd98fd91db1fb224437", "text": "\"I am reminded of a dozen year old dialog. I asked my 6 year old, \"\"If we call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?\"\" She replied, \"\"Four, you can call it anything you want, but the dog still has four legs.\"\" Early on in my marriage, my wife was heading out to the mall, and remarked that she was \"\"going to invest in a new pair of shoes.\"\" I explained to her that while I was happy she would have new shoes to wear, words have meaning, and unless she was going to buy the ruby red slippers Dorothy wore in the Wizard of Oz, or Elvis' Blue Suede Shoes, her's were not expected to rise in value and weren't an investment. Some discussion followed, and we agreed even the treadmill, which is now 20 years old, was not an 'investment' despite the fact that it saved us more than its cost in a combined 40 years of gym memberships we did not buy. In the end, no one who is financially savvy calls a lottery ticket an investment, and few who buy them acknowledge that it's simply throwing money away.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "edf4fba292caeb83937280fef7ca1934", "text": "\"The general argument put forward by gold lovers isn't that you get the same gold per dollar (or dollars per ounce of gold), but that you get the same consumable product per ounce of gold. In other words the claim is that the inflation-adjusted price of gold is more-or-less constant. See zerohedge.com link for a chart of gold in 2010 GBP all the way from 1265. (\"\"In 2010 GBP\"\" means its an inflation adjusted chart.) As you can see there is plenty of fluctuation in there, but it just so happens that gold is worth about the same now as it was in 1265. See caseyresearch.com link for a series of anecdotes of the buying power of gold and silver going back some 3000 years. What this means to you: If you think the stock market is volatile and want to de-risk your holdings for the next 2 years, gold is just as risky If you want to invest some wealth such that it will be worth more (in real terms) when you take it out in 40 years time than today, the stock market has historically given better returns than gold If you want to put money aside, and it to not lose value, for a few hundred years, then gold might be a sensible place to store your wealth (as per comment from @Michael Kjörling) It might be possible to use gold as a partial hedge against the stock market, as the two supposedly have very low correlation\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "feb21810230b9f43fca6b46a596cab28", "text": "\"I am lucky enough to have chosen a flexible mortgage that allows me to change payment amounts at certain, very lenient intervals (to a minimum amount). So when I was laid off, the first thing I did was call my bank to lower my payments to a level that allowed me some breathing room, at my new, lower income. If and when my family's income increases, I'll re-adjust my payments to a higher amount. But if you're concerned about the \"\"what if\"\"s in this economy, I'd definitely choose a mortgage that allows for flexibility so that you don't lose your house if you don't have to, particularly if your situation is temporary.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "3045b540feb9f49fe398d1594def0733", "text": "The value of the company is ill-defined until it actually has some assets and/or product. You give the investors whatever equity stakes you and they negotiate as appropriate for their investment based on how convinced they are by your plan and how badly you need their money.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "2b91ea9ba00641d019c71d2986da2f19", "text": "the financial information is generally filed via SEDAR (Canada) or SEC (US) before the conference call with the investment community. This can take before either before the market opens or after the market closes. The information is generally distribute to the various newswire service and company website at the same time the filing is made with SEDAR/SEC.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "227085867cf45b9715b131058918dc42", "text": "Thank you very much for this thoughtful response. In my opinion the judges care more about the why behind your valuation rather than a how. Anyone can use a formula, but it takes so much more to understand why to use the formula. Personally, the 'why' is going to be the toughest part for me understand and wrap my head around. Once again thank you for the advice and the tip.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "79c9faa04877ce178ce2d7046116d8ac", "text": "Lets say the hurdle rate for this company is 10% and the current return on assets is 8%. A linear increase in revenue and earnings would actually destroy some value as projects that have a 9% return are accepted even though they destroy value for the shareholder. hope this helps!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "81274911372a5638c5f3fdc2923a01e8", "text": "Yes, an investment can be made in a company before IPO. The valuation process is similar as that done for arriving at IPO or for a normal listed company. The difference may be the premium perceived for the idea in question. This would differ from one investor to other. For example, whether Facebook will be able to grow at the rate and generate enough revenues and win against competition is all a mathematical model based on projections. There are quite a few times the projection would go wrong, and quite a few times it would go correct. An individual investor cannot generally borrow from banks to invest into a company (listed or otherwise) (or for any other purpose) if he does not have any collateral that can be kept as security by the bank. An individual can get a loan only if he has sufficient collateral. The exceptions being small personal loans depending on one's credit history. The Private Equity placement arm of banks or firms in the business of private equity invest in start-up and most of the time make an educated guess based on their experience. More than half of their investments into start-ups end up as wiped out. An occasional one or two companies are ones that they make a windfall gain on.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f0656add052a98a8db4a16389833068c", "text": "Source, see if you have access to it Convertible notes are often used by angel investors who wish to fund businesses without establishing an explicit valuation of the company in which they are investing. When an investor purchases equity in a startup, the purchase price of the equity implies a company valuation. For example, if an investor purchases a 10 per cent ownership stake in a company, and pay $1m for that stake, this implies that the company is worth $10m. Some early stage investors may wish to avoid placing a value on the company in this way, because this in turn will affect the terms under which later-stage investors will invest in the company. Convertible notes are structured as loans at the time the investment is made. The outstanding balance of the loan is automatically converted to equity when a later equity investor appears, under terms that are governed by the terms set by the later-stage equity investor. An equity investor is someone who purchases equity in a company. Example:- Suppose an angel investor invests $100,000 using a convertible note. Later, an equity investor invests $1m and receives 10% of the company's shares. In the simplest possible case, the initial angel investor's convertible note would convert to 1/10th of the equity investor's claim. Depending on the exact structure of the convertible note, however, the angel investor may also receive extra shares to compensate them for the additional risk associated with being an earlier investor The worst-case scenario would be if the issuing company initially performed well, meaning that the debt would be converted into shares, and subsequently went bankrupt. The converted shares would become worthless, but the holder of the note would no longer have any recourse. Will twitter have to sell their offices and liquidate staff to close this debt? This depends on the seniority(priority) of the debt. Debt is serviced according to seniority. The higher seniority debts will be paid off first and then only the lower seniority debts be serviced. This will all be in the agreements when you enter into a transaction. When you say liquidate staff you mean sell off their assets and not sell their staff into slavery.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b648eff366f6e5637857115c7754cff1", "text": "Other metrics like Price/Book Value or Price/Sales can be used to determine if a company has above average valuations and would be classified as growth or below average valuations and be classified as value. Fama and French's 3 Factor model would be one example that was studied a great deal using an inverse of Price/Book I believe.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0ada391b851e4f03449e58bdfff9259c", "text": "\"Many thanks for thedetailed response, appreciate it. But I am still not clear on the distinction between a public company and the equity holders. Isn't a public company = shareholders + equity holders? Or do you mean \"\"company\"\" = shareholders+equity holders + debt holders?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e91d8c0dcb863fc4b14459f62a081534", "text": "\"Complex matter that doesn't boil down to a formula. The quant aspect could be assessed by calculating WACCs under various funding scenarii and trying to minimize, but it is just one dimension of it. The quali aspects can vary widely depending on the company, ownership structure, tax environment and business needs and it really can't be covered even superficially in a reddit comment... Few examples from the top of my mind to give you a sense of it: - shareholders might be able to issue equity but want to avoid dilution, so debt is preferred in the end despite cost. Or convertible debt under the right scenario. - company has recurring funding needs and thinks that establishing a status on debt market is worth paying a premium to ensure they can \"\"tap\"\" it whenever hey need to. - adding debt is a way to leverage and enhance ROI/IRR for certain types of stakeholders (think LBOs) - etc etc etc Takes time and a lot of experience/work to be able to figure out what's best and there isn't always a clear answer. Source: pro buy side credit investor with experience and sizeable AuMs.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a1541a350f6310fe53e41eb6404a5a15", "text": "Our company gives the best business valuation services. If you want to any business valuation service, then you can come to our company website. When it comes to obtaining a business valuation, business owners are faced with a myriad of choices of the business valuation services. Kirk Kleckner valuation businesses need understanding and analysis of a variety of complex factors including detailed technical knowledge of value drivers and in-depth industry knowledge.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7fb2ffdbc44f0f39716c4966623450b3", "text": "\"First, you mentioned your brother-in-law has \"\"$100,000 in stock options (fully vested)\"\". Do you mean his exercise cost would be $100,000, i.e. what he'd need to pay to buy the shares? If so, then what might be the estimated value of the shares acquired? Options having vested doesn't necessarily mean they possess value, merely that they may be exercised. Or did you mean the estimated intrinsic value of those options (estimated value less exercise cost) is $100,000? Speaking from my own experience, I'd like to address just the first part of your question: Have you treated this as you would a serious investment in any other company? That is, have you or your brother-in-law reviewed the company's financial statements for the last few years? Other than hearing from people with a vested interest (quite literally!) to pump up the stock with talk around the office, how do you know the company is: BTW, as an option holder only, your brother-in-law's rights to financial information may be limited. Will the company share these details anyway? Or, if he exercised at least one option to become a bona-fide shareholder, I believe he'd have rights to request the financial statements – but company bylaws vary, and different jurisdictions say different things about what can be restricted. Beyond the financial statements, here are some more things to consider: The worst-case risk you'd need to accept is zero liquidity and complete loss: If there's no eventual buy-out or IPO, the shares may (effectively) be worthless. Even if there is a private market, willing buyers may quickly dry up if company fortunes decline. Contrast this to public stock markets, where there's usually an opportunity to witness deterioration, exit at a loss, and preserve some capital. Of course, with great risk may come great reward. Do your own due diligence and convince yourself through a rigorous analysis — not hopes & dreams — that the investment might be worth the risk.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ebb41def0224a718e83f9f53e5a8e812", "text": "\"The textbook answer would be \"\"assets-liabilities+present discounted value of all future profit\"\". A&L is usually simple (if a company has an extra $1m in cash, it's worth $1m more; if it has an extra $1m in debt, it's worth $1m less). If a company with ~0 assets and $50k in profit has a $1m valuation, then that implies that whoever makes that valuation (wants to buy at that price) really believes one of two things - either the future profit will be significantly larger than $50k (say, it's rapidly growing); or the true worth of assets is much more - say, there's some IP/code/patents/people that have low book value but some other company would pay $1m just to get that. The point is that valuation is subjective since the key numbers in the calculations are not perfectly known by anyone who doesn't have a time machine, you can make estimates but the knowledge to make the estimates varies (some buyers/sellers have extra information), and they can be influenced by those buyers/sellers; e.g. for strategic acquisitions the value of company is significantly changed simply because someone claims they want to acquire it. And, $1m valuation for a company with $500m in profits isn't appropriate - it's appropriate only if the profits are expected to drop to zero within a couple years; a stagnant but stable company with $500m profits would be worth at least $5m and potentially much more.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cf235feacbb58cfe83d07179e16d57dc", "text": "What this abbreviated balance sheet tells you is that this company has negative equity. The liabilities are greater than the value of the assets. The obvious problem for the company who wants to do business with you is that they are going to have a real hard time accessing credit to pay off any debts that they incur with doing business with you. In this case, the recommended course would be to ask them put cash up front instead of putting them on account. You don't really need to look at the income statement to see that they are currently underwater. If their income statement turns out to be splendid, then you can wait for them to get their liabilities under control before you set up an account for them.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "13eebc93749f883f4ed2b7a6c5550e65", "text": "If the cash flow information is complete, the valuation can be determined with relative accuracy and precision. Assuming the monthly rent is correct, the annual revenue is $1,600 per year, $250/mo * 12 months - $1,400/year in taxes. Real estate is best valued as a perpetuity where P is the price, i is the income, and r is the rate of interest. Theoreticians would suggest that the best available rate of interest would be the risk free rate, a 30 year Treasury rate ~3.5%, but the competition can't get these rates, so it is probably unrealistic. Anways, aassuming no expenses, the value of the property is $1,600 / 0.035 at most, $45,714.29. This is the general formula, and it should definitely be adjusted for expenses and a more realistic interest rate. Now, with a better understanding of interest rates and expenses, this will predict the most likely market value; however, it should be known that whatever interest rate is applied to the formula will be the most likely rate of return received from the investment. A Graham-Buffett value investor would suggest using a valuation no less than 15% since to a value investor, there's no point in bidding unless if the profits can be above average, ~7.5%. With a 15% interest rate and no expenses, $1,600 / .15, is $10,666.67. On average, it is unlikely that a bid this low will be successful; nevertheless, if multiple bids are placed using this similar methodology, by the law of small numbers, it is likely to hit the lottery on at most one bid.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "34bbcb90aefee6b1b90f85ab10a1b6d5", "text": "While there are many very good and detailed answers to this question, there is one key term from finance that none of them used and that is Net Present Value. While this is a term generally associate with debt and assets, it also can be applied to the valuation models of a company's share price. The price of the share of a stock in a company represents the Net Present Value of all future cash flows of that company divided by the total number of shares outstanding. This is also the reason behind why the payment of dividends will cause the share price valuation to be less than its valuation if the company did not pay a dividend. That/those future outflows are factored into the NPV calculation, actually performed or implied, and results in a current valuation that is less than it would have been had that capital been retained. Unlike with a fixed income security, or even a variable rate debenture, it is difficult to predict what the future cashflows of a company will be, and how investors chose to value things as intangible as brand recognition, market penetration, and executive competence are often far more subjective that using 10 year libor rates to plug into a present value calculation for a floating rate bond of similar tenor. Opinion enters into the calculus and this is why you end up having a greater degree of price variance than you see in the fixed income markets. You have had situations where companies such as Amazon.com, Google, and Facebook had highly valued shares before they they ever posted a profit. That is because the analysis of the value of their intellectual properties or business models would, overtime provide a future value that was equivalent to their stock price at that time.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bbd20f7c83f683c9d6750e463c9f06b3", "text": "Aside of the other (mostly valid) answers, share price is the most common method of valuating the company. Here is a bogus example that will help you understand the general point: Now, suppose that Company A wants to borrow $20 Million from a bank... Not a chance. Company B? Not a problem. Same situation when trying to raise new funds for the market or when trying to sell the company or to acquire another", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "876a9afbec24369bf05e5fbbf8a0ed8f", "text": "I think you're not applying the right time scale here. ESPP (Employee Stock Purchase Plan) is usually vesting every 6 months. So every half a year you receive a chunk of stocks based on your salary deduction, with the 15% discount. Every half a year you have a chunk of money from the sale of these stocks that you're going to put into your long term investment portfolio. That is dollar cost averaging. You're investing periodically (every 6 months in this case), same (based on your salary deferral) amount of money, regardless of the stock market behavior. That is precisely what dollar cost averaging is.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "f4787628c60d6a60b91a5d4684dfa6b6", "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.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "08d5925d71bac21221c3b6a39b518ede", "text": "There is a difference between trading which is short term focussed and investing which is longterm focussed. On the long term what drives stock prices is still the overall economy and the performance of the underlying business aspects. I do not think that any trading algorithms will change this. These are more concerned with short term profits regardless of the underlying business economics. Therefore I think that longterm investing using index funds is still a viable strategy for most private investors.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6f544644f72576548c4c527e2a680e79", "text": "Common financial advice is just that - it is common and general in nature and not specific for your financial needs, your goals and your risk tolerance. Regarding the possibility of a US market not going anywhere over a long period of time, well it is not a possibility, it has happened. See chart below: It took 13 years for the S&P 500 to break through 1550, a level first reached in March 2000, tested in October 2007 (just before the GFC) and finally broken through in March 2013. If you had bought in early 2000 you would still be behind when you take inflation into account. If you took the strategy of dollar cost averaging and bought the same dollar value (say $10,000) of the index every six months (beginning of each January and each July) starting from the start of 2000 and bought your last portion in January 2013, you would have a return of about 35% over 13.5 years (or an average of 2.6% per year). Now lets look at the same chart below, but this time add some trend lines. If we instead bought whenever the price crossed above the downtrend-line and sold whenever the price crossed below the uptrend-line (with the first purchase at the start of January 2000), we would have a return of 93% over the 13.5 years (or an average of 6.9% per year). Another more aggressive option (but manageable if you incorporate a risk management strategy) is to buy long when the price crosses the downtrend-line and sell your existing long position and sell short when the price drops below the uptrend-line. That is profiting both up-trending and down-trending markets. Again we start our buying at the start of January 2000. By shorting the index when the market is in a down-trend you could increase the above returns of 93% by another 54%, for a total return of 147% over 13.5 years (or an average of 10.9% per year). To conclude, using a simple long term strategy to time the markets may result in considerably higher returns than dollar cost averaging over the medium to long term, and I know which strategy would help me sleep better at night.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "72cd18a6de1e80e2251a563f6319b2c6", "text": "I believe that the Wikipedia article is attempting to draw a difference between dollar cost averaging as a result of investing when money becomes available (i.e. 401k contributions from your paycheck) and spreading out a lump sum investment. For the former you want to continuously invest as the money becomes available following your predetermined plan for allocation. For the later it may be reasonable to consider the market as you decide how and the timing for investing.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5d2b124795bc36a1421cb615e4b3ab19", "text": "\"Can you easily stomach the risk of higher volatility that could come with smaller stocks? How certain are you that the funds wouldn't have any asset bloat that could cause them to become large-cap funds for holding to their winners? If having your 401(k) balance get chopped in half over a year doesn't give you any pause or hesitation, then you have greater risk tolerance than a lot of people but this is one of those things where living through it could be interesting. While I wouldn't be against the advice, I would consider caution on whether or not the next 40 years will be exactly like the averages of the past or not. In response to the comments: You didn't state the funds so I how I do know you meant index funds specifically? Look at \"\"Fidelity Low-Priced Stock\"\" for a fund that has bloated up in a sense. Could this happen with small-cap funds? Possibly but this is something to note. If you are just starting to invest now, it is easy to say, \"\"I'll stay the course,\"\" and then when things get choppy you may not be as strong as you thought. This is just a warning as I'm not sure you get my meaning here. Imagine that some women may think when having a child, \"\"I don't need any drugs,\"\" and then the pain comes and an epidural is demanded because of the different between the hypothetical and the real version. While you may think, \"\"I'll just turn the cheek if you punch me,\"\" if I actually just did it out of the blue, how sure are you of not swearing at me for doing it? Really stop and think about this for a moment rather than give an answer that may or may not what you'd really do when the fecal matter hits the oscillator. Couldn't you just look at what stocks did the best in the last 10 years and just buy those companies? Think carefully about what strategy are you using and why or else you could get tossed around as more than a few things were supposed to be the \"\"sure thing\"\" that turned out to be incorrect like the Dream Team of Long-term Capital Management, the banks that were too big to fail, the Japanese taking over in the late 1980s, etc. There are more than a few times where things started looking one way and ended up quite differently though I wonder if you are aware of this performance chasing that some will do.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7c1e38777f47d8af6a0319a751443f2a", "text": "If you're worried about investing all at once, you can deploy your starting chunk of cash gradually by investing a bit of it each month, quarter, etc. (dollar-cost averaging). The financial merits and demerits of this have been debated, but it is unlikely to lose you a lot of money, and if it has the psychological benefit of inducing you to invest, it can be worth it even if it results in slightly less-than-optimal gains. More generally, you are right with what you say at the end of your question: in the long run, when you start won't matter, as long as you continue to invest regularly. The Boglehead-style index-fund-based theory is basically that, yes, you might save money by investing at certain times, but in practice it's almost impossible to know when those times are, so the better choice is to just keep investing no matter what. If you do this, you will eventually invest at high and low points, so the ups and downs will be moderated. Also, note that from this perspective, your example of investing in 2007 is incorrect. It's true that a person who put money in 2007, and then sat back and did nothing, would have barely broken even by now. But a person who started to invest in 2007, and continued to invest throughout the economic downturn, would in fact reap substantial rewards due to continued investing throughout the post-2007 lows. (Happily, I speak from experience on this point!)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2b3d7a7c4d8d36118d82262283492883", "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.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "08913e498cefe5b386b38e004e601db9", "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.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cc39bdd8904f551c60cb40005c4475e7", "text": "Dollar cost averaging is a method of regularly investing money as it is available. For example, $100 from each paycheck. It has been shown to bet better, on average, than collecting the money and investing it all at once. It is not intended to be used when you have the entire amount up front. See this link. Dollar cost averaging a lump sum would only be beneficial if the market was just as likely to go up as is to go down. Since, over time, the market (historically) has always gone up, your best bet is to invest all of your money right away. Anything else is just trying to time the market.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4cd26d742c20c768e4ca24448d556523", "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.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "90a0d7e413f92d7ff344b6cf2db64f1f", "text": "Dollar cost averaging is beneficial if you don't have the money to make large investments but are able to add to your holding over time. If you can buy the same monetary amount at regular intervals over time, your average cost per share will be lower than the stock's average value over that time. This won't necessarily get you the best price, but it will get you, on the whole, a good price and will enable you to increase your holdings over time. If you're doing frequent trading on a highly volatile stock, you don't want to use this method. A better strategy is to buy the dips: Know the range, and place limit orders toward the bottom of the range. Then place limit orders to sell toward the high end of the range. If you do it right, you might be able to build up enough money to buy and sell increasing numbers of shares over time. But like any frequent trader, you'll have to deal with transaction fees; you'll need to be sure the fees don't eat all your profit.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "19b0e32b6f712ab5a1c24af0bef5c754", "text": "Dollar cost averaging doesn't (or shouldn't) apply here. DCA is the natural way we invest in the market, buying in by a steady dollar amount each pay period, so over time we can buy more shares when the market is down, and fewer when it's higher. It's more psychological than financial. The fact is that given the market rises, on average, over time, if one has a lump sum to invest, it should be deployed based on other factors, not just DCA'd in. As I said, DCA is just how we all naturally invest from our income. The above has nothing to do with your situation. You are invested and wish to swap funds. If the funds are with the same broker, you should be able to execute this at the closing price. The sell and buy happen after hours and you wake up the next day with the newly invested portfolio. If funds are getting transferred from broker to broker, you do have a risk. The risk that they take time, say even 2 days when funds are not invested. A shame to lose a 2% market move as the cost of moving brokers. In this case, I'd do mine and my wife's at different times. To reduce that risk.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "80ccc6f1c6b0f9d238426febd4303db4", "text": "\"Generally investing in index-tracking funds in the long term poses relatively low risk (compared to \"\"short term investment\"\", aka speculation). No-one says differently. However, it is a higher risk than money-market/savings/bonds. The reason for that is that the return is not guaranteed and loss is not limited. Here volatility plays part, as well as general market conditions (although the volatility risk also affects bonds at some level as well). While long term trend may be upwards, short term trend may be significantly different. Take as an example year 2008 for S&P500. If, by any chance, you needed to liquidate your investment in November 2008 after investing in November 1998 - you might have ended up with 0 gain (or even loss). Had you waited just another year (or liquidated a year earlier) - the result would be significantly different. That's the volatility risk. You don't invest indefinitely, even when you invest long term. At some point you'll have to liquidate your investment. Higher volatility means that there's a higher chance of downward spike just at that point of time killing your gains, even if the general trend over the period around that point of time was upward (as it was for S&P500, for example, for the period 1998-2014, with the significant downward spikes in 2003 and 2008). If you invest in major indexes, these kinds of risks are hard to avoid (as they're all tied together). So you need to diversify between different kinds of investments (bonds vs stocks, as the books \"\"parrot\"\"), and/or different markets (not only US, but also foreign).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "eef9aedb0ad4b895b7f771712e625179", "text": "If you are making regular periodic investments (e.g. each pay period into a 401(k) plan) or via automatic investment scheme in a non-tax-deferred portfolio (e.g. every month, $200 goes automatically from your checking account to your broker or mutual fund house), then one way of rebalancing (over a period of time) is to direct your investment differently into the various accounts you have, with more going into the pile that needs bringing up, and less into the pile that is too high. That way, you can avoid capital gains or losses etc in doing the selling-off of assets. You do, of course, take longer to achieve the balance that you seek, but you do get some of the benefits of dollar-cost averaging.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "551089afd5fcc946ab27a41a8ff485df", "text": "You need an accountant and/or a lawyer who is familiar with the US tax code and the rules in South Korea (assuming from your tag). As the interest will be money generated in the US, you could be required to withhold some of the interest and remit it to the IRS (I believe 30% withholding rate). Since South Korea is a treaty country, your friend can complete and sign a form W8-BEN and give it to you, so you may withhold a lower amount. Your friend would need to file a return if too much was withheld. They may also get taxed in South Korea. There are probably rules in South Korea about minimum interest that must be charged, similar to Applicable Federal Rates for the US, so check with your accountant or lawyer for this. If you craft it correctly, you will be able to have a loan as a mortgage (with the house properly secured), which then would allow you to deduct mortgage interest rates from your return. As far as I am aware, there is no maximum amount for loans.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "b30ca28a9511d1c987202b799849f608", "text": "\"The fact that your shares are of a Canadian-listed corporation (as indicated in your comment reply) and that you are located in the United States (as indicated in your bio) is highly relevant to answering the question. The restriction for needing to be a \"\"qualified institutional buyer\"\" (QIB) arises from the parent company not having registered the spin-off company rights [options] or shares (yet?) for sale in the United States. Shares sold in the U.S. must either be registered with the SEC or qualify for some exemption. See SEC Fast Answers - Securities Act Rule 144. Quoting: Selling restricted or control securities in the marketplace can be a complicated process. This is because the sales are so close to the interests of the issuing company that the law might require them to be registered. Under Section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933, all offers and sales of securities must be registered with the SEC or qualify for some exemption from the registration requirements. [...] There are regulations to follow and costs involved in such registration. Perhaps the rights [options] themselves won't ever be registered (as they have a very limited lifetime), while the listed shares might be? You could contact investor relations at the parent company for more detail. (If I guessed the company correctly, there's detail in this press release. Search the text for \"\"United States\"\".)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "95ceaf68d7d7f21e0c5e9a63fe8b8b59", "text": "An option gives you the legal right to buy stock. However, you cannot exercise a stock option unless you have the ability to buy the stock. In the United States, securities not fully registered with the SEC for public sale cannot be purchased except by qualified investors.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1f3dc5f3342791a9c6385b702ab00e25", "text": "Accredited investors are required to have 1 million in assets (not including primary residence) or $200,000/yr income for the last 3 years. These kinds of regulations come from the SEC, not the company involved, which means the SEC thinks it's a risky investment. If I recall correctly, [someone I know] had to submit evidence of being an accredited investor to trade options on [his] IRA. It may be that this is related to the classification of the options.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "ecb156f821da90cf6b20e5f77a89ecea", "text": "Let's work from the inside out. Options are not stock. Options are a contract that give you the right to own the stock. For options to have value they have to be exercised. Straight line means that each quarter 1/16th of the option grant becomes yours and the company cannot take it away. Four quarters in a year times four years is 16 quarters. 'Grant' means they are giving you the options at no cost to you. 'Nonqualified' means that there is nothing you have to do, or be, in order to get the options. (Some options are only for management.)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0e3085ac5c2dcd51f5a17ac8f04f1cdb", "text": "\"This information is clearly \"\"material\"\" (large impact) and \"\"non-public\"\" according to the statement of the problem. Also, decisions like United States v. Carpenter make it clear that you do not need to be a member of the company to do illegal insider trading on its stock. Importantly though, stackexchange is not a place for legal advice and this answer should not be construed as such. Legal/compliance at Company A would be a good place to start asking questions.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ab0454cb97484b5aee38694219afe541", "text": "\"I can see two possibilities. Either a deal is struck that someone (the company itself, or a large owner) buys out the remaining shares. This is the scenario @mbhunter is talking about, so I won't go too deeply into it, but it simply means that you get money in your bank account for the shares in question the same as if you were to sell them for that price (in turn possibly triggering tax effects, etc.). I imagine that this is by far the most common approach. The other possibility is that the stock is simply de-listed from a public stock exchange, and not re-listed elsewhere. In this case, you will still have the stock, and it will represent the same thing (a portion of the company), but you will lose out on most of the \"\"market\"\" part of \"\"stock market\"\". That is, the shares will still represent a monetary value, you will have the same right to a portion of the company's profits as you do now, etc., but you will not have the benefit of the market setting a price per share so current valuation will be harder. Should you wish to buy or sell stock, you will have to find someone yourself who is interested in striking a deal with you at a price point that you feel comfortable with.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "56596fac5107f6f0af730a04194202f2", "text": "\"A little terminology: Grant: you get a \"\"gift\"\" with strings attached. \"\"Grant\"\" refers to the plan (legal contract) under which you get the stock options. Vesting: these are the strings attached to the grant. As long as you're employed by the company, your options will vest every quarter, proportionally. You'll become an owner of 4687 or 4688 options every quarter. Each such vest event means you'd be getting an opportunity to buy the corresponding amount of stocks at the strike price (and not the current market price which may be higher). Buying is called exercising. Exercising a nonqualified option is a taxable event, and you'll be taxed on the value of the \"\"gift\"\" you got. The value is determined by the difference between the strike price (the price at which you have the option to buy the stock) and the actual fair market value of the stock at the time of vest (based on valuations). Options that are vested are yours (depending on the grant contract, read it carefully, leaving the company may lead to forfeiture). Options that are not vested will disappear once you leave the company. Exercised options become stocks, and are yours. Qualified vs Nonqualifed - refers to the tax treatment. Nonqualified options don't have any special treatment, qualified do. 3.02M stocks issued refers to the value of the options. Consider the total valuation of the company being $302M. With $302M value and 3.02M stocks issued, each stock is worth ~$100. Now, in a year, a new investor comes in, and another 3.02M stocks are issued (if, for example, the new investor wants a 50% stake). In this case, there will be 6.04M stocks issued, for 302M value - each stock is worth $50 now. That is called dilution. Your grant is in nominal options, so in case of dilution, the value of your options will go down. Additional points: If the company is not yet public, selling the stocks may be difficult, and you may own pieces of paper that no-one else wants to buy. You will still pay taxes based on the valuations and you may end up paying for these pieces of paper out of your own pocket. In California, it is illegal to not pay salary to regular employees. Unless you're a senior executive of the company (which I doubt), you should be paid at least $9/hour per the CA minimum wages law.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "181fcdb8c771ba8b96ff97a4673d3219", "text": "Sounds to me like this restriction is limited to banks as issuers of convertible debt, which may affect their compliance with capital requirements, but is unlikely to affect the overall market for convertible debt. Also the restriction is limited to retail investors, and I think most convertible debt offerings are not aimed at retail investors, so this restriction seems pretty limited to me.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d618f155ef12b1224a787c896d6999c1", "text": "This is not what you normally get told, including by partners who were there at the time. What IPO were you referring to? Andersen Consulting / Accenture's IPO was some time after the split. Edit: spun off? It wasn't what you'd call a friendly split", "title": "" }, { "docid": "df968b0dad2a0f72bf0e625b8d5e3fa0", "text": "\"There is one other factor that I haven't seen mentioned here. It's easy to assume that if you buy a stock, then someone else (another stock owner) must have sold it to you. This is not true however, because there are people called \"\"market makers\"\" whose basic job is to always be available to buy shares from those who wish to sell, and sell shares to those who wish to buy. They could be selling you shares they just bought from someone else, but they also could simply be issuing shares from the company itself, that have never been bought before. This is a super oversimplified explanation, but hopefully it illustrates my point.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2ca73cc0c28838ed1dafb94c0b3cf5db", "text": "\"Shares sold to private investors are sold using private contracts and do not adhere to the same level of strict regulations as publicly traded shares. You may have different classes of shares in the company with different strings attached to them, depending on the deals made with the investors at the time. Since public cannot negotiate, the IPO prospectus is in fact the investment contract between the company and the public, and the requirements to what the company can put there are much stricter than private sales. Bob may not be able to sell his \"\"special\"\" stocks on the public exchange, as the IPO specifies which class of stock is being listed for trading, and Bob's is not the same class. He can sell it on the OTC market, which is less regulated, and then the buyer has to do his due diligence. Yes, OTC-sold stocks may have strings attached to them (for example a buy back option at a preset time and price).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f17641cdf736100a78e0521fc4b00a67", "text": "\"I think the question, as worded, has some incorrect assumptions built into it, but let me try to hit the key answers that I think might help: Your broker can't really do anything here. Your broker doesn't own the calls you sold, and can't elect to exercise someone else's calls. Your broker can take action to liquidate positions when you are in margin calls, but the scenario you describe wouldn't generate them: If you are long stock, and short calls, the calls are covered, and have no margin requirement. The stock is the only collateral you need, and you can have the position on in a cash (non-margin) account. So, assuming you haven't bought other things on margin that have gone south and are generating calls, your broker has no right to do anything to you. If you're wondering about the \"\"other guy\"\", meaning the person who is long the calls that you are short, they are the one who can impact you, by exercising their right to buy the stock from you. In that scenario, you make $21, your maximum possible return (since you bought the stock at $100, collected $1 premium, and sold it for $120. But they usually won't do that before expiration, and they pretty definitely won't here. The reason they usually won't is that most options trade above their intrinsic value (the amount that they're in the money). In your example, the options aren't in the money at all. The stock is trading at 120, and the option gives the owner the right to buy at 120.* Put another way, exercising the option lets the owner buy the stock for the exact same price anyone with no options can in the market. So, if the call has any value whatsoever, exercising it is irrational; the owner would be better off selling the call and buying the stock in the market.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7bc709e0c92e4abf2f119a1a3f385d46", "text": "You can go to the required company's website and check out their investor section. Here is an example from GE and Apple.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "104d9230bb7c2710413f9a8b3498be85", "text": "\"If you participate in an IPO, you specify how many shares you're willing to buy and the maximum price you're willing to pay. All the investors who are actually sold the shares get them at the same price, and the entity managing the IPO will generally try to sell the shares for the highest price they can get. Whether or not you actually get the shares is a function of how many your broker gets and how your broker distributes them - which can be completely arbitrary if your broker feels like it. The price that the market is willing to pay afterward is usually a little higher. To a certain extent, this is by design: a good deal for the shares is an incentive for the big (million/billion-dollar) financiers who will take on a good bit of risk buying very large positions in the company (which they can't flip at the higher price, because they'd flood the market with their shares and send the price down). If the stock soars 100% and sticks around that level, though, the underwriting bank isn't doing its job very well: Investors were willing to give the company a lot more money. It's not \"\"stealing\"\", but it's definitely giving the original owners of the company a raw deal. (Just to be clear: it's the existing company's owners who suffer, not any third party.) Of course, LinkedIn was estimated to IPO at $30 before they hiked it to $45, and plenty of people were skeptical about it pricing so high even then, so it's not like they didn't try. And there's a variety of analysis out there about why it soared so much on the first day - fewer shares offered, wild speculative bubbles, no one could get a hold of it to short-sell, et cetera. They probably could have IPO'd for more, but it's unlikely there was, say, $120/share financing available: just because one sucker will pay the price doesn't mean you can move all 7.84 million IPO shares for it.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "78e6e2f957a987d119a5a5707da97c33", "text": "I think the best answer that doesn't make the buyer look like a moron is this. Buyer had previously sold a covered call. They wanted to act on a different opportunity so they did a closing buy/write with a spread of a couple cents below asking for the stock, but it dipped a couple cents and the purchase of those options to close resolved at 4 cents due to lack of sellers.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e0622d970d4c45fc8bc60f986f22d96c", "text": "My understanding was that if a company buys back shares then those shares are 'extinguished' I.e. the rest of the shareholders now own a greater portion of the company. However, if there is only one share left, then the company could not buy it because doing so would extinguish it leaving the company without an owner. That result would run contrary to the requirements for an incorporated company in countries like NZ and Australia.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d36e0205b0ac8c7e297c5ca82ec01fd2", "text": "The parent company is likely to own other assets, which can be badly performing. Spinoffs are typically the better performers. There are also other factors, for example certain big funds cannot invest in sectors like tobacco or defense and for conglomerates it makes sense to spin those assets off to attract a wider investor audience.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fd7d96383a07ed17787eb0485ff922ba", "text": "Excellent summary. I'm going to steal the analogy as it is related to how I discuss the problems of austerity to people convinced it is fiscally conservative and the right thing to do when in a poor income generating situation. (I usually explain the difference as going into debt to fund better education or skills in well-researched high-demand areas, and thereby improve your earning potential, versus cutting spending until you are living in a box eating cat food thereby making it harder to get back on your feet.)", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "666a61f1c1c898757a9a989eaa678f77", "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.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f130cbf649f1927e057d58350102db01", "text": "You can apply for a position with any company you like, whether or not you are a shareholder. However, owning shares in a company, even lots of shares in a company, does not entitle you to having them even look at your resume for any job, let alone the CEO position. You generally cannot buy your way into a job. The hiring team, if they are doing their job correctly, will only hire you if you are qualified for the job, not based on what your investments are. Stockholders get a vote at the shareholders' meeting and a portion of the profits (dividend), and that's about it. They usually don't even get a discount on products, let alone a job. Of course, if you own a significant percentage of the stock, you can influence the selections to the board of directors. With enough friends on the board, you could theoretically get yourself in the CEO position that way.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "27927535ae3f4f07332efe08b23f7af6", "text": "If I own shares of a company, am I entitled to apply as position of CEO? Sure, but anybody else can apply too. Who decides? The corporate board of directors, who are nominally chosen by a vote of the stockholders. I say nominally, because in practice they are nominated by the current CEO and it's very rare for stockholders to veto the CEO's choice. Once in a while a group of stockholders will nominate their own candidate for the board, but they rarely win. I'd like to think there's some socio-corporate or investor-relationship advantage to working or having the option to work in certain positions in said company -- especially by privilege or total outstanding share ownership numbers. Why? Simply holding a large number of shares doesn't necessarily mean you know anything about running the business.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "6fabbdbd646deebfed2e6ce56a9ae822", "text": "\"If you own 1% of a company, you are technically entitled to 1% of the current value and future profits of that company. However, you cannot, as you seem to imply, just decide at some point to take your ball and go home. You cannot call up the company and ask for 1% of their assets to be liquidated and given to you in cash. What the 1% stake in the company actually entitles you to is: 1% of total shareholder voting rights. Your \"\"aye\"\" or \"\"nay\"\" carries the weight of 1% of the total shareholder voting block. Doesn't sound like much, but when the average little guy has on the order of ten-millionths of a percentage point ownership of any big corporation, your one vote carries more weight than those of millions of single-share investors. 1% of future dividend payments made to shareholders. For every dollar the corporation makes in profits, and doesn't retain for future growth, you get a penny. Again, doesn't sound like much, but consider that the Simon property group, ranked #497 on the Fortune 500 list of the world's biggest companies by revenue, made $1.4 billion in profits last year. 1% of that, if the company divvied it all up, is $14 million. If you bought your 1% stake in March of 2009, you would have paid a paltry $83 million, and be earning roughly 16% on your initial investment annually just in dividends (to say nothing of the roughly 450% increase in stock price since that time, making the value of your holdings roughly $460 million; that does reduce your actual dividend yield to about 3% of holdings value). If this doesn't sound appealing, and you want out, you would sell your 1% stake. The price you would get for this total stake may or may not be 1% of the company's book value. This is for many reasons: Now, to answer your hypothetical: If Apple's stock, tomorrow, went from $420b market cap to zero, that would mean that the market unanimously thought, when they woke up tomorrow morning, that the company was all of a sudden absolutely worthless. In order to have this unanimous consent, the market must be thoroughly convinced, by looking at SEC filings of assets, liabilities and profits, listening to executive statements, etc that an investor wouldn't see even one penny returned of any cash investment made in this company's stock. That's impossible; the price of a share is based on what someone will pay to have it (or accept to be rid of it). Nobody ever just gives stock away for free on the trading floor, so even if they're selling 10 shares for a penny, they're selling it, and so the stock has a value ($0.001/share). We can say, however, that a fall to \"\"effectively zero\"\" is possible, because they've happened. Enron, for instance, lost half its share value in just one week in mid-October as the scope of the accounting scandal started becoming evident. That was just the steepest part of an 18-month fall from $90/share in August '00, to just $0.12/share as of its bankruptcy filing in Dec '01; a 99.87% loss of value. Now, this is an extreme example, but it illustrates what would be necessary to get a stock to go all the way to zero (if indeed it ever really could). Enron's stock wasn't delisted until a month and a half after Enron's bankruptcy filing, it was done based on NYSE listing rules (the stock had been trading at less than a dollar for 30 days), and was still traded \"\"over the counter\"\" on the Pink Sheets after that point. Enron didn't divest all its assets until 2006, and the company still exists (though its mission is now to sue other companies that had a hand in the fraud, get the money and turn it around to Enron creditors). I don't know when it stopped becoming a publicly-traded company (if indeed it ever did), but as I said, there is always someone willing to buy a bunch of really cheap shares to try and game the market (buying shares reduces the number available for sale, reducing supply, increasing price, making the investor a lot of money assuming he can offload them quickly enough).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2c46d161c34612ee675c75f428ef6e50", "text": "Many times, specific CEOs are hired by the board in part because the board members will also at times in the future possibly be in the running to be the CEO of a company, and the previous CEO's they voted for in may wind up being on the board of the company they want to be CEO of. So one hand makes damn sure it's washing the other. It's a very incestuous process and not uncommon for CEOs of one company to be sitting board members on another.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "49dfbb810a5fa505b81271cf193a70ed", "text": "\"Yes yes, beholden to the shareholders at all possible costs of morals, ethics, or long-term sustainability. The wonders of the stock market. Nonetheless, it's not entirely true. He has a responsibility to do what the shareholders want, which might not be \"\"profit above all.\"\" Furthermore, since he is the biggest shareholder, he has the largest single say in what the shareholders want. In fact he and the Legg Mason company own just under 50%, so they pretty much get to decide between them what to do. Now add to that the fact that being a patent troll isn't necessarily a profitable strategy, nor a particularly palatable behaviour, and it's pretty easy to say \"\"we will not go down this road,\"\" and get wholehearted approval. FINALLY, it doesn't change the fact that Bezos is still a fucking hypocrite.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "26f0f07919599bd9f2ea3e0bcea77ea1", "text": "Retail companies selling their real estate holdings isn't uncommon and is actually pushed for by shareholders sometimes (see Macy's and Starboard Value). The fact that the CEO bought them seems unique but not necessarily means there was an issue. I would think that type of transaction would get a lot of scrutiny so would be surprised if he could pull off any fuckery. The disclosure seems like it might be a pretty standard disclosure known as a related party transaction that again isn't in and of itself an issue", "title": "" }, { "docid": "21dc9abe53c4abd581bbc4cc434ccffd", "text": "...ok, you understand that the board of directors don't collect all of the profit from a company, and that shareholders can sell stock, right? It his honestly confusing to me that you have a problem with shareholders being given ownership in a company that is spun off from the company that they own.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a1c98ccc768243eed86cf029e1f1b71b", "text": "Warren Buffet also isn't the CEO of a major company - or at least one that matters in this context. He is the CEO of Berkshire Hathaway. That is a holding company that owns a handful of other companies. It doesn't have customers, it doesn't sell a product. It owns companies that do those things, some of which directly rely on technology and need their CEO to have a strong understanding of technology. The things is though, that each of those companies? They have their own CEO - not Warren Buffett.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a4d5580589ea4d62f3f30101411de1ba", "text": "Everything you say is true also of private companies, particularly ones that are publicly traded. As a shareholder, you bet your ass I don't like it when the CEO I've hired is doing stupid shit like this instead of saving the company money and making me more money.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c0a75c6f74188ba156f3b7ab5fda265f", "text": "First, the stock does represent a share of ownership and if you have a different interpretation I'd like to see proof of that. Secondly, when the IPO or secondary offering happened that put those shares into the market int he first place, the company did receive proceeds from selling those shares. While others may profit afterward, it is worth noting that more than a few companies will have secondary offerings, convertible debt, incentive stock options and restricted stock that may be used down the road that are all dependent upon the current trading share price in terms of how useful these can be used to fund operations, pay executives and so forth. Third, if someone buys up enough shares of the company then they gain control of the company which while you aren't mentioning this case, it is something to note as some individuals buy stock so that they can take over the company which happens. Usually this has more of an overall plan but the idea here is that getting that 50%+1 control of the company's voting shares are an important piece to things here.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1a67fc235eaacfbf84a602083cfb5dee", "text": "No necessarily. Do you bring any unique value to the company other than a sweaty pair of hands? Did you bring a unique skill, bring in investors, have relationships that are able to get the business off the ground, have intellectual property worth something to the business? Did you cultivate the unique seeds or strain on your own before the business started? These are all things one takes into consideration when dividng up shares in a company. The question you need to ask yourself is could someone else have provided the sweaty hands other than you? If yes, then unfortunately you provide no unique value to the business and that will be reflected in how share are portioned. I'm speaking as a co-founder in a Silicon Valley tech company. I've spent a lot of money with lawyers to understand this. You should definitely talk to a lawyer.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "455ed166eb7e627286d56be7073dcf01", "text": "\"These people are pretty off. Insider trading cases, outside of a tender offer context, require some sort of a breach of duty. It's not simply \"\"non-public material information\"\". You have to trade securities in interstate, based on or while in possession of the material non-public information, and in doing so is a breach of duty owed to the company or to the information source. Now simply saying \"\"personal info\"\" about an executive does not tell me much about its materiality. So assuming it passes the materiality test, and assuming you yourself aren't a corporate insider, then the only thing left to discuss is whether or not it is misappropriation. To be misappropriation you need to be breaching some duty owed to your information source. Now this isn't just principal-agent duty, this can extend to friends and family if there is a pattern of keeping confidences. So unless you're this guys brother or doctor there really isn't a strong claim against you.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d06349084c45781a721806b020f21563", "text": "They are actually pretty common and it's the reason that anyone who takes a Board seat at a company without D&amp;O insurance is playing russian roulette. Now winning a shareholder suit on the merits (whether personal or derivative liability) is a whole different story - at least in Delaware Chancellery (fun fact DE has two judicial systems, one for corporate stuff with world class talent and one for everything else). There's this doctrine called the 'Business Judgment Rule' which is a very high bar for a shareholder to overcome. Otherwise you'd see shareholder suits for every business deal that went wrong. The other problem these Uber investors might run into is they haven't realized a loss, nor are they likely to have a negative return on the initial investment. Marking down a gain against a high water mark is an uphill battle. Based on what it public, idk the cause of action, maybe Kalanick is going back on contractual language in his separation agreement (which is currently non-public) or that some of his actions as CEO could be considered self-dealing (again, not information currently in the public domain). Or maybe it's just a threat to put all the non-public shitty things he has done in a pleading and therefore put it in the public domain.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "498799c329f332ed740cce7d09b70ba6", "text": "Your question has already been answered, you divide the amount of shares you own * 100% by the total amount of shares. However, I feel it is somewhat misleading to talk about owning a percentage of the company by owning shares. Strictly speaking, shares do not entitle you to a part of the company but instead give you a proportional amount of votes at shareholder meetings (assuming no funky share classes). What this means is that someone who owns 30% of a company's shares can't just grab 30% of the company's assets (factories, offices and whatever) and say that they are entitled to own this. What they actually own is 30% of the voting rights in this company, this means that they control 30% of all available votes when the company calls a vote on corporate actions, choosing a new director etc. which is how shareholders exert their influence on a company.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5ad9424d58305e68be6c8606b9addd64", "text": "\"I know some CEOs (for both big and small companies). A few have admitted to me on a few occasions they themselves don't have the slightest idea about being a CEO. The world changes too fast so they have absolutely no idea what's going to work and what isn't when it comes time to make decisions. All they can do is rely on the recommendations of the people that work under them at which point it becomes a matter of trust: Do you trust the recommendations from your CTO? Who did he trust to make that recommendation? The trust chain goes waaay down and it makes you wonder if the people who \"\"know\"\" (at the end of the chain) shouldn't have been able to just make the decision themselves.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "efcd1142c1cd872b0c2498a900e359a0", "text": "\"By issuing additional equity. In this case, the pie isn't \"\"fixed,\"\" it's getting bigger. Now, to avoid lawsuits and other potential issues (some of which may be unavoidable), the owner will likely need to subscribe for additional equity himself. Example: 100 shares outstanding. 51 to owner, 49 to 2 others. That 49 will have to equal 20%, as none of their shares are being sold (likely). This means total shares will need to be increased to 245. Subtract 49 from that number: 196 Marcus gets half of that at a determined price. 98 Owner must increase his stake from 51 to 98 shares. To do so, he'll need to contribute additional cash for the same price Marcus gets in on. That could be expensive.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "71cc4c1825d9e3abe96891c2fe6102df", "text": "\"Excellent observation! The short answer is that you don't own the firm, you own the right to your share of the profits (or losses) for the period that you worked there. Technically you also have the right to vote to sell or disband the company (known as demutualization). The workers at Equal Exchange voted in a clause to our bylaws to prevent this--basically a \"\"poison pill.\"\" It says that if we ever sold the company we have to pay off any debts, return any investments (at the price paid), and give away any remaining assets to another company dedicated to Fair Trade. The effect is that there is no incentive for us to sell the company, so we don't worry about all the kinds of things you would if you were focused on an \"\"exit strategy.\"\" But in this sense, \"\"ownership\"\" is even more compromised, right? Back to your question, I think the answer is \"\"It depends on what you mean by ownership.\"\" It is certainly not ownership in the conventional sense. I think of it more like a trusteeship. We are stewards of the enterprise while we have the benefits given to active workers, but we have a responsibility not just to maximize our own well-being, but that of the other stakeholders (our suppliers, consumers, investors, our communities, the environment, etc), including the people who worked there before (and left part of the profits in the company as retained earnings) and those that will come after us.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "b06dbc7ce5a82c30fc8a0c8b1ccf8fd5", "text": "Bill was the founder of Microsoft, so he did indeed have a large number of shares as the company was growing exponentially. He has previously donated a large share of his fortune to the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation, so his fortune would be even greater were it not for the philanthropy. He is still a large holder of Microsoft stock at about $12B according to your link, but it wouldn't be wise to hold his entire fortune in one company, so he has diversified. You can see that his investment portfolio at Cascade includes ~$28B in Televisa and ~$7B in Berkshire Hathaway. http://www.tickerspy.com/pro/Bill-Gates---Cascade-Investment And you can keep track of whether he stays at the top by watching the bloomberg billionaires list. http://www.bloomberg.com/billionaires/", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0deb603a0ea8f5758bbd77421d151e0d", "text": "Bill gates is founder of microsoft along with his friend allen.in microsoft as its vast empire increasing the wealth and enormous property of bill gates is increasing", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "db8b1714a47d047e039ee0a498b8ef5a", "text": "You seem to be confused - try answering these: 1. Whom do the traders work for? 2. What are the traders trading and how do they acquire those vehicles? 3. How does a company make money and how does that money get deployed? Google will be crucial for these, but will answer your questions. If you choose to get in finance, remember the golden rule: if you have a question, Google it first.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "470818f415974e8f12818ad3b1a7978a", "text": "\"&gt; Identifying and supporting products good for the business If a gray person comes with a great idea or innovation, any idiot can \"\"identify\"\" and \"\"support\"\" that product. And you want to bet how many great ideas and products Steve and CEOs said \"\"No!\"\" and it turned out to be huge mistakes? Do you know the story of Bill Gates/Microsoft Internet Explorer versus Steve Jobs/Macintosh? Hint: eventually, Steve had to cave in and ask Bill Gates to make a version of Internet Explorer for the Macintosh. In this respect, Bill Gates was much much better than Steve Jobs in identifying and supporting new products and ideas.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2472f1f12e24f238ed3c47e4e4436671", "text": "where did all this money come from? Investing in a currency, whether it's bitcoin, gold, USD, or another country's currency, is a risky investment because the average trader loses money (after transaction fees). This is not true of the stock market, since successful companies actually produce wealth. So in short, money made from selling bitcoin comes from the people buying your bitcoins. why has bitcoin performed so well over the past year? This is an extremely difficult question to answer, but I can point out some of the most prominent factors. This last point is one of the biggest. With all the recent hype, more and more people want to try to get in on the action. No one can tell when or if the bubble will pop, though.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "15126f103a2667dba90dba966a855cc1", "text": "\"I don't think they \"\"actually\"\" turned a profit, did they? As I understand it, this is an accounting method/trick, it's not as if they generated more income by using this system. They just made their monetary value visible rather than implicit. Which is not the same as turning a profit... or am I missing something?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "70959a94ab8dc442e876159289f59fd4", "text": "\"? You quoted an oft cited oft disproven false factoid. It's extremely biased. Like you seem to be. Most of those \"\"self made\"\", notice those quotes, people came from money. Their business is \"\"self made\"\", with family money. Like the article implies.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4aa71bc5470147597db83be59cdb3e56", "text": "\"The scenario you mention regarding capital gains is pretty much the core of the issue. Here's a run-down from PolitiFact.com that explains it a bit. It's important to focus on it being the tax rate, not the tax amount (which I think you get, but I want to reinforce that for other readers). Basically, most of Buffett's income comes from capital gains and dividends, income from investments he makes with the money he already has. Income earned by buying and selling stocks or from stock dividends is generally taxed at 15 percent, the rate for long-term capital gains and qualified dividends. Buffett also mentioned that some of the \"\"mega-rich\"\" are hedge fund managers \"\"who earn billions from our daily labors but are allowed to classify our income as 'carried interest,' thereby getting a bargain 15 percent tax rate.\"\" We don't know the taxes paid by Buffett's secretary, who was mentioned by Obama but not by Buffett. Buffet's secretary would have to make a high salary, or else typical deductions (such as the child tax credit) would offset taxes owed. Let's say the secretary is a particularly well-compensated executive assistant, making adjusted income more than $83,600 in income. (Yes, that sounds like a lot to us, too, but remember: We're talking about the secretary to one of the richest people in the world.) In that case, marginal tax rates of 28 percent would apply. Then, there would be payroll taxes of 6.25 percent on the first $106,800, money that goes to Social Security, and another 1.45 percent on all income, which goes to Medicare. The secretary’s overall tax rate would be lower than 28 percent, since not all the income would be taxed at that rate, only the income above $83,600. Buffett, meanwhile, would pay very little, if anything, in payroll taxes. In the New York Times op-ed, Buffett said he paid 17.4 percent in taxes. Thinking of the secretary, it gets a little complicated, given how the tax brackets work, but basically, people who make between $100,000 and $200,000 are paying around 20 percent in federal taxes, including payroll and income taxes, according to an analysis from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. So in this case, the secretary's rate is higher because so much of Buffett's income comes from investments and is taxed at the lower capital gains rate. Here's Buffet's original Op-Ed in the NYT for those of you that aren't familiar.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ca81db9a63449674261e9745be87404d", "text": "\"It's called being smart. I spent 2+ years building a business that now brings me \"\"passive income\"\". IE: It runs itself online and I only need to put a couple of hours/week. Have you ever tried a \"\"turnkey operation\"\"? Anything easy is so saturated that you will most likely never make money.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cdb67751d24e889a71f4402990cfddd0", "text": "\"Yes, you're right, the whole system of venture capital is all about creating a great work environment. So are all those articles about how Jack Dorsey works two 8-hour job back to back, and Michael Arrington the venture capitalist and tabloidist telling you to \"\"quit crying\"\" -- and Paul Graham, the venture capitalist, telling you how hackers are god's gift to the earth and how, for a hacker, working a job is like being \"\"a caged lion.\"\" It's not about the money at all. Nooo. They're telling you this for the good of their widdle souls.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "355134dc7106c021184cf1ba965be9a2", "text": "\"An individual's net worth is the value of the person's assets minus his debt. To find your net worth, add up the value of everything that you own: your house, your cars, your bank accounts, your retirement investments, etc. Then subtract all of your debt: mortgage, student loans, credit card debt, car loans, etc. If you sold everything you own and paid off all your debts, you would be left with your net worth. If Bill Gates' net worth is $86 Billion, he likely does not have that much cash sitting in the bank. Much of his net worth is in the form of assets: stocks, real estate, and other investments. If he sold everything that he has and paid any debts, he would theoretically have the $86 Billion. I say \"\"theoretically\"\" because in the amounts of stock that he owns, he could cause a price drop by selling it all at once.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c766b03621430efa069852fc839217ef", "text": "A great deal of the money was made abroad. I imagine they paid some tax in those respective countries. I heard that they and other large Co's were trying to get a deal bring the money home. If they did they would be taxed again.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8031cefc62322a4ac0c426c8089c9342", "text": "If you could find a breakdown, I suspect that it would show not just that they are self employed but own their own company. There are many people that are self employed, many of them make a good living at it, but are not millionaires. My neighbour the plumber is a perfect example of this sort of self-employed and comfortable but not rich person. The key to wealth growth is to own (a significant part of) a company. It one way to leverage a smaller amount of money to something much larger. Plough your profits back in to the company to grow it, pay yourself reasonably for some time as the company grows. After it is some size, you can afford to pay yourself more of the profits, if not sell it as a going concern to someone else. One last thought - I am assuming that your book is claiming that they made their money through self-employment, instead of choosing to become self employed after striking rich somewhere. If I were to win the lottery, I might then become a self-employed something, but in that case it was not my self-employment that got me there.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8d6ad7b4bb3d7a75db8e7658f0390b3e", "text": "\"For example, Biff Spoiles started an animation studio and production developing company to produce animations -- something in the ballpark of $12,000,000.00 U.S.D. -- and he had a $12K/yearly salary. I have no clue what you mean, as others have mentioned. (I'm not sure what the \"\"12 million\"\" refers to? Do you mean \"\"total cost of animations created by the company in a year\"\" or? If so, \"\"12 million\"\" would amount to say 5 to 20 major, brand name TV commercials, for example. Do you mean the \"\"cost of plant\"\" - so, for a \"\"TV commercial production company\"\" you mean purchasing desks, drawing pads, Porsches, and so on?) Your specific example of a \"\"film or TV-commercial production company\"\" is a bad example, it's not really a \"\"business\"\" - that is to say, it does not rely on capital and return on capital. The way famous \"\"film or TV-commercial production companies\"\" happens is precisely like this: A young guy/girl G (perhaps a designer or filmmaker) is working, just as you say, for a menial wage at a film company. (G got that first job perhaps out of art school.) G gets a chance at doing a photo shoot, animation, or helping direct a TV commercial. G does a fantastic job. Later that year, a large important animation or commercial job arrives at the company; due to the earlier excellent result, G is allowed to work on the new one. G again he does a fantastic job. Soon, within that company, G is a highly-regarded animator or director and has attracted fame amongst colleagues and clients. Eventually, G hears of a company (XYZ Hotel) that needs a TV ad made. (Or an animation, or whatever.) G says to XYZ, look, you could spend $230,000 with a production company, and in reality they'd have me direct it anyway. I'm leaving to work independently, so I will do your job for only $190,000. In a word, XYZ says \"\"Yes\"\" and hands over a cheque for $190,000. G spends $160,000 on the usual actors, cameramen, editing, etc, and uses 2 months of G's own time, and pockets $5000 after tax. G then doesn't get a job for a couple months, and then gets three more in the new year. Because the commercial for XYZ was so good, XYZ gave him another couple to do, for another product line. Eventually G has just enough money coming in that he \"\"hires\"\" a few freelance people for a few weeks here and there ... a cameraman, illustrator, gopher, and so on. Eventually G has enough TV ads solidly booked G can risk actually hiring long-time friend P as a producer. P spends most of her time actually bringing in more work - and it builds from there. Eventually. You have a very busy, well-known in the industry, TV commercial production company with many staff and endless clients (example, say, http://rsafilms.com) It might be at some point in there (say, around year three), G would like to borrow the odd million bucks to basically \"\"help with cashflow.\"\" The answer to that is nothing more than \"\"through business contacts, G knows a wealthy dentist/whoever who is prepared to do that.\"\" But note carefully that at that point, G's company is already very firmly established, famous for doing 20 spectacular animations/commercials, and so on. (Note too that 999 times out of 1000 when this happens, the money evaporates and the dentist D never sees a penny back. In that case G \"\"apologizes\"\".) Only much much later once the company has many, many staff and great cashflow, could the production company actually borrow from a bank, or perhaps from \"\"actual investors\"\", which is more what you have in mind. regarding your four categories. Numbers 1 and 3 are totally wrong; they do not work at all like you are asking. indeed the very simple answer is: \"\"borrow money\"\" to start a category 1 or 3 type of business. It's totally inconceivable. (The only exception would be if you literally just have an extremely rich Uncle, who loans you a few million to \"\"start an animation studio\"\" - which would be completely whacky. Because in that example: company XYZ could not care less if you \"\"have\"\" an animation studio (ie: your Uncle has given you a platinum card, and you bought a building, some drawing pads, and a few dozen Macs). XYZ just couldn't care less. All they care about is your folio of work. In this example, RSA would get the job :) ) My guess is you're thinking people somehow magically go around \"\"borrowing money\"\" to get businesses like that started. (Your examples 1 and 3.) The simple answer is they don't and can't - your fears are assuaged! :)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "32a72c979ff699546c6d7d4d2da204b2", "text": "I don't know about the Saudi part of your point, but generally these are estimations based on the ownership stake of X person's main enterprise (e.g. Amazon, Microsoft, Berkshire). Even if Bezos made millions one year investing in, whatever, McDonald's franchises, it's a rounding error compared to his ~$80bn stake in Amazon, so they don't need pour over tax returns to get exact info.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3a8684858339cf2b2fcef9ec073368bd", "text": "\"As others have stated, CEO's often make more than 200K, and when they do, they're compensated with stock options and other lucrative bonuses and deals that allow them to build wealth above and beyond the face value of their salary. However, remember that having wealth makes it easier to build further wealth. As Victor pointed out, having wealth allows you to increase your wealth in different kinds of investments. Also, it gives you access to more human capital, e.g. wealth management services at firms like Northern Trust, a greater ability to diversify into investments like hedge funds, more abilities to invest abroad through foreign trusts, etc. Also, you have to realize that wealthier people often pay a lower percentage in taxes than people who earn a salary. In the US, long-term capital gains are taxed at a much lower rate than income, so wealthy individuals who earn much of their money from long-term investments won't pay nearly as high a rate. In my case, my current salary places me at the top of the 25% tax bracket (in the US), but if I earned all of my income through long-term capital gains instead of salary, I would only pay around 15-20% in taxes. Plus, I could afford numerous tax accounting firms to help me find ways to pay fewer taxes. It's not altruism that causes CEOs like Steve Jobs and Mark Zuckerberg to take a $1 salary. This isn't directly related to CEOs, and I'm not leveling accusations of corruption against high net worth individuals, but I remember spending a few months in a small town in a country known for its corruption. The mayor had recently purchased a home worth the equivalent of several million dollars, on his annual civil servant salary of approximately $20K. One of the students asked him how he managed to afford such a sizable property, and he replied \"\"I live very frugally.\"\" This is probably a relatively rare case (I'm sure it depends on the country), but nevertheless, it illustrates another way that some people build wealth.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "025adc914ef3b24720ad4fd4af995e8d", "text": "\"I did once read a book titled \"\"How I made a million dollars on the stock market\"\". It sounded realistic enough to be a true story. The author made it clear on the first page that (a) this was due to some exceptional circumstances, (b) that he would never again be able to pull off something like this, and (c) you would never be able to pull of something like this, except with extreme luck. (The situation was small company A with a majority shareholder, other small company B tries to gain control by buying all the shares, the majority shareholder of A trying to prevent this by buying as many shares as possible, share price shooting up ridiculously, \"\"smart\"\" traders selling uncovered shorts to benefit when the price inevitably drops, the book author buying $5,000 worth of shares because they were going up, and then one enormous short squeeze catching out the traders. And he claimed having sold his shares for over a million - before the price dropped back to normal). Clearly not a matter of \"\"playing your cards right\"\", but of having an enormous amount of luck.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "37b6ad0518ebc7f4b83f9bd343b4f4fd", "text": "When calculating the NPV, is there anything I need to do in between the project start date outlay (Nov 2017), and the first cash inflow (July 2019). Do I need to discount the cashflow to the present, and if so, how? Yes, you need to discount every cash flow to the present time, not just the first one. When discounting cash flows, the appropriate discount rate needs to represent the opportunity cost of the initial cash outlay. Meaning if you were to use that money for something else, what rate of return would you expect? You could be safe and assume only a risk-free return (like 2-3%) or use the average rate of return of other investments (e.g. 10-15%). Another common approach is to use your cost of capital if you're raising funds for the project, or would instead have use the funds to pay off existing debt. Once you find a relevant discount rate, then just discount each cash flow by dividing them by e^rt, where r is the annualized discount rate (e.g. 0.10 for 10%) and t is the decimal number of years between now and the cash flow (e.g. 1.5 for 18 months)", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "d9ce05ddb40dc946e759da0253008cb9", "text": "The short answer is you'd be much better off paying up front in this case. The present value of $2,500 plus 12 $500 monthly payments is $8,128 at a 12% discount rate, which is much higher then the $6,000 you could pay now. The long answer is how you get that present value. How can I use time value of money to find the present value of money if I choose to go with option A? First of all, I'd question your discount rate. A 12% discount rate means that you can safely reinvest the money that you're not spending today at a 12% annual (1% monthly) rate, which seems very high. Normally for short-term spending decisions you'd use a risk-free rate, which would be closer to 1%-2%. However, to discount at 1% monthly you'd just divide each monthly payment by 1 plus the discount rate raised to the power of the number of periods until each payment. So the total is which is $8,127.54 You could also use the NPV function in Excel. It seems like to get an accurate answer the calculation of the interest rate should take into account compounding period as well? Correct, and in the example above the compounding is assumed to be monthly since that's the periodicity of the cash flows. You could calculate it with a different compounding period but it gets much more complicated and probably wouldn't make a significant difference. The discount rate does take compounding into effect, meaning if you saved the $5,628 (the PV of $8,128 minus the $2,500 initial payment), you'd earn 1% interest on $5,628 the first month, $5,128 plus that interest the second month, etc.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d96196ef83d94bf00b3b41436799afda", "text": "**Using your Time Value of Money functions on your calculator** N = 3x2 = 6 PV = -914 PMT = (.16 x 1000)/2 = 80 FV = 1000 Compute I/Y Or **Step by step calculations** 1) Compute the PV of **(FV of Bond)**1000 in **(3x2)**6 periods at **(16%/2)**8% with no payments 2) Compute the PV of an Annuity of **(.16/2x1000)**$80 payments over **(3x2)**6 periods with an interest rate of **(16%/2)**8% and 0 Future Value 3) Combine the values from Steps 1 and 2", "title": "" }, { "docid": "34df5ec1c05afd8af852ecb3db4b3b77", "text": "\"I got $3394.83 The first problem with this is that it is backwards. The NPV (Net Present Value) of three future payments of $997 has to be less than the nominal value. The nominal value is simple: $2991. First step, convert the 8% annual return from the stock market to a monthly return. Everyone else assumed that the 8% is a monthly return, but that is clearly absurd. The correct way to do this would be to solve for m in But we often approximate this by dividing 8% by 12, which would be .67%. Either way, you divide each payment by the number of months of compounding. Sum those up using m equal to about .64% (I left the calculated value in memory and used that rather than the rounded value) and you get about $2952.92 which is smaller than $2991. Obviously $2952.92 is much larger than $2495 and you should not do this. If the three payments were $842.39 instead, then it would about break even. Note that this neglects risk. In a three month period, the stock market is as likely to fall short of an annualized 8% return as to beat it. This would make more sense if your alternative was to pay off some of your mortgage immediately and take the payments or yp pay a lump sum now and increase future mortgage payments. Then your return would be safer. Someone noted in a comment that we would normally base the NPV on the interest rate of the payments. That's for calculating the NPV to the one making the loan. Here, we want to calculate the NPV for the borrower. So the question is what the borrower would do with the money if making payments and not the lump sum. The question assumes that the borrower would invest in the stock market, which is a risky option and not normally advisable. I suggest a mortgage based alternative. If the borrower is going to stuff the money under the mattress until needed, then the answer is simple. The nominal value of $2991 is also the NPV, as mattresses don't pay interest. Similarly, many banks don't pay interest on checking these days. So for someone facing a real decision like this, I'd almost always recommend paying the lump sum and getting it over with. Even if the payments are \"\"same as cash\"\" with no premium charged.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9dc01201aa4269618c5e42e2e8990c96", "text": "Both are correct depending on what you are really trying to evaluate. If you only want to understand how that particular investment you were taking money in and out of did by itself than you would ignore the cash. You might use this if you were thinking of replacing that particular investment with another but keeping the in/out strategy. If you want to understand how the whole investment strategy worked (both the in/out motion and the choice of investment) than you would definitely want to include the cash component as that is necessary for the strategy and would be your final return if you implemented that strategy. As a side note, neither IRR or CAGR are not great ways to judge investment strategies as they have some odd timing issues and they don't take into account risk.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0244ad7d7f3b3a9289ef05a741c226ee", "text": "O boy you can take an entire on this. Here are the basics. Project future cash flows on a series of underlying assumptions such as growth rate and risk free rate. You then have to adjust top line items such as depreciation and come up with FCF. Then discount everything back with a terminal value.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3f7bfbd56d669e0399eb055e331c64dd", "text": "Set your xirr formula to a very tall column, leaving lots of empty rows for future additions. In column C, instead of hardcoding the value, use a formula that tests if it's the current bottom entry, like this: =IF(ISBLANK(A7),-C6, C6) If the next row has no date entered (yet), then this is the latest value, and make it negative. Now, to digress a bit, there are several ways to measure returns. I feel XIRR is good for individual positions, like holding a stock, maybe buying more via DRIP, etc. For the whole portfolio it stinks. XIRR is greatly affected by timing of cash flows. Steady deposits and no withdrawals dramatically skew the return lower. And the opposite is true for steady withdrawals. I prefer to use TWRR (aka TWIRR). Time Weighted Rate of Return. The word 'time' is confusing, because it's the opposite. TWRR is agnostic to timing of cashflows. I have a sample Excel spreadsheet that you're welcome to steal from: http://moosiefinance.com/static/models/spreadsheets.html (it's the top entry in the list). Some people prefer XIRR. TWRR allows an apples-to-apples comparison with indexes and funds. Imagine twin brothers. They both invest in the exact same ideas, but the amount of cash deployed into these ideas is different, solely because one brother gets his salary bonus annually, in January, and the other brother gets no bonus, but has a higher bi-weekly salary to compensate. With TWRR, their percent returns will be identical. With XIRR they will be very different. TWRR separates out investing acumen from the happenstance timing of when you get your money to deposit, and when you retire, when you choose to take withdrawals. Something to think about, if you like. You might find this website interesting, too: http://www.dailyvest.com/", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e1edf407c3b96a5274a68e07beae9b48", "text": "If you mean the internal rate of return, then the quarterly rate of return which would make the net present value of these cash flows to be zero is 8.0535% (found by goal seek in Excel), or an equivalent compound annual rate of 36.3186% p.a. The net present value of the cash flows is: 10,000 + 4,000/(1+r) - 2,000/(1+r)^2 - 15,125/(1+r)^3, where r is the quarterly rate. If instead you mean Modified Dietz return, then the net gain over the period is: End value - start value - net flow = 15,125 - 10,000 - (4,000 - 2,000) = 3,125 The weighted average capital invested over the period is: 1 x 10,000 + 2/3 x 4,000 - 1/3 x 2,000 = 12,000 so the Modified Dietz return is 3,125 / 12,000 = 26.0417%, or 1.260417^(1/3)-1 = 8.0201% per quarter, or an equivalent compound annual rate of 1.260417^(4/3)-1 = 36.1504%. You are using an inappropriate formula, because we know for a fact that the flows take place at the beginning/end of the period. Instead, you should be combining the returns for the quarters (which have in fact been provided in the question). To calculate this, first calculate the growth factor over each quarter, then link them geometrically to get the overall growth factor. Subtracting 1 gives you the overall return for the 3-quarter period. Then convert the result to a quarterly rate of return. Growth factor in 2012 Q4 is 11,000/10,000 = 1.1 Growth factor in 2013 Q1 is 15,750/15,000 = 1.05 Growth factor in 2013 Q2 is 15,125/13,750 = 1.1 Overall growth factor is 1.1 x 1.05 x 1.1 = 1.2705 Return for the whole period is 27.05% Quarterly rate of return is 1.2705^(1/3)-1 = 8.3074% Equivalent annual rate of return is 1.2705^(4/3)-1 = 37.6046% ========= I'd recommend you to refer to Wikipedia.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "efc0e864bbf6af6afaa295022d4b712f", "text": "Illustrating with a shorter example: Suppose I deposit 1,000 USD. Every year I deposit another 100 USD. I want to know how much money will be on that savings account in 4 years. The long-hand calculation is Expressed with a summation And using the formula derived from the summation (as shown by DJohnM) So for 20 years Note in year 20 (or year 4 in the shorter example) the final $100 deposit does not have any time to accrue interest before the valuation of the account.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e21331efcf4b1348c1afe3ad08025a41", "text": "\"When you're calculating the cash flows used to compute an IRR, with regard to the expenses used to calculate those cash flows: Do you assume that expenses are going to be higher than they would be today, by using an assumed inflation rate? Or is everything (all cash flows) assumed to be in today's dollars, and you account for inflation's effect on your actual returns at \"\"the end\"\" by subtracting off the inflation rate from the IRR?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4cbc08ca586bb6481b02839029c3f7d0", "text": "What you are looking here is the cost of capital, because that is what you are effectively giving up in order to invest in those loans. In a discounted cash-flow, it would be the *i* in the denominator (1+*i*). For instance, instead of purchasing those loans you could have lent your money at the risk-free rate (not 100% true, but typical assumption), and therefore you are taking a slight risk in those loans for a higher return. There are several ways to compute that number, the one most often used would be the rate if the bank were to lend that money. In this way, it would be the Fed Funds rate plus some additional risk premium.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "abdd072491ef76018f5ae6da88ba5c38", "text": "The solution is x = 8.92. This assumes that Chuck's six years of deposits start from today, so that the first deposit accumulates 10 years of gain, i.e. 20*(1 + 0.1)^10. The second deposit gains nine years' interest: 20*(1 + 0.1)^9 and so on ... If you want to do this calculation using the formula for an annuity due, i.e. http://www.financeformulas.net/Future-Value-of-Annuity-Due.html where (formula by induction) you have to bear in mind this is for the whole time span (k = 1 to n), so for just the first six years you need to calculate for all ten years then subtract another annuity calculation for the last four years. So the full calculation is: As you can see it's not very neat, because the standard formula is for a whole time span. You could make it a little tidier by using a formula for k = m to n instead, i.e. So the calculation becomes which can be done with simple arithmetic (and doesn't actually need a solver).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1169f9db654b7e89de8d8bc0a26b24e1", "text": "The preparation for starting up of the company has lasted already more than 2 years. Let's say the company starts officially in January next year. So, in January 2014... 8 million USD is invested to purchase the equipments and the company will start selling their prdocuts right away. Imagine the company will be selling the same amount of products each year at the same price for 5 years. After 5 years it will sell the equipments for 6 million USD and cease to exist. The depreciation of equipments is divided into those 5 years. So, each year the depreciation of equipments is 400.000 USD. In despite of this, the company will make 500.000 USD per year as a profit before tax. So, the equipments are bought in Januardy 2014 (first month of the existence of the company) and sold in December 2018 (last month of the existence of the company). This is the NPV that I calculated. Is it correct?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "11bf7e54ddc4e7c2844243fea04bbcb9", "text": "I feel like IRR is the tool you want to use for this, then you can look at your output and determine if it's higher than what your discount rate is likely to be. Similarly, you can just do a traditional NPV analysis and then examine the sensitivity by changing the discount rate. If you're safely in profitable territory then you're probably fine despite not knowing the discount rate.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d8467aae09feacb8c5a1c9b2663bd24e", "text": "The MWRR that you showed in your post is calculated incorrectly. The formula that you use... ($15,750 - $15,000 - $4,000) / ($15,000 + 0.5 x $4,000) Translates into a form of the DIETZ formula of (EMV-BMV-C)/(BMV + .5 x C) The BMV is the STARTING balance. And as a matter of fact, the starting balance was NOT 15,000. It was IN FACT 11,000. See, the starting value for a month MUST BE the ending value of the prior month. So the BMV of 11,000 would give you the correct answer. Because if you added 4,000 at the start of the month (on day 1), it would have to have been ADDED to the 11,000 of the PRIOR month's ENDING value. Make sense? That would also mean that the addition of 4000 to the 11000 would imply that you started day 1 with 11,000. Make sense? Summary: When doing the calculations, you may use the ending value on the last day of the month to get your EMV. BUT YOU MAY NOT take the ending value on day 1 to get the BMV. That simply can not make sense since you already added a bunch of money during the day. Think about it. Davie", "title": "" }, { "docid": "134a2b54f8d2ddefd07691afbcb16bc6", "text": "The short answer is that you would want to use the net inflow or net outflow, aka profit or loss. In my experience, you've got a couple different uses for IRR and that may be driving the confusion. Pretty much the same formula, but just coming at it from different angles. Thinking about a stock or mutual fund investment, you could project a scenario with an up-front investment (net outflow) in the first period and then positive returns (dividends, then final sale proceeds, each a net inflow) in subsequent periods. This is a model that more closely follows some of the logic you laid out. Thinking about a business project or investment, you tend to see more complicated and less smooth cashflows. For example, you may have a large up-front capital expenditure in the first period, then have net profit (revenue less ongoing maintenance expense), then another large capital outlay, and so on. In both cases you would want to base your analysis on the net inflow or net outflow in each period. It just depends on the complexity of the cashflows trend as to whether you see a straightforward example (initial payment, then ongoing net inflows), or a less straightforward example with both inflows and outflows. One other thing to note - you would only want to include those costs that are applicable to the project. So you would not want to include the cost of overhead that would exist even if you did not undertake the project.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "bd7f2b503ced211bf1dc76b6d304183f", "text": "Central banks don't generally post exchange rates with other currencies, as they are not determined by central banks but by the currency markets. You need a source for live exchange rate data (for example www.xe.com), and you need to calculate the prices in other currencies dynamically as they are displayed -- they will be changing continually, from minute to minute.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "db751b9cc469f547550a323044b23d8e", "text": "For manual conversion you can use many sites, starting from google (type 30 USD in yuan) to sites like xe.com mentioned here. For programmatic conversion, you could use Google Calculator API or many other currency exchange APIs that are available. Beware however that if you do it on the real site, the exchange rate is different from actual rates used by banks and payment processing companies - while they use market-based rates, they usually charge some premium on currency conversion, meaning that if you have something for 30 dollars, according to current rate it may bet 198 yuan, but if he uses a credit card for purchase, it may cost him, for example, 204 yuan. You should be very careful about making difference between snapshot market rates and actual rates used in specific transaction.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "47b1fe6ea3938c0a89565d110d6fdfd8", "text": "You probably can get away with only updating the exchange rates once a day and specify that any prices quoted in units other than your home currency are estimates only. If you're planning to accept more than one currency as payment, I'd (a) see about whatever regulations there are for doing so, and (b) build in a nice spread for yourself if you're allowed to, since it is a service you're providing to your customers. If you Google currency converter the first result is just that: a currency converter.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "ff8c228fa00407ba410e26d425901054", "text": "\"For the purposes of report generation, I would recommend that you present the data in the currency of the user's home country. You could present another indicator, if needed, to indicate that a specific transaction was denominated in a foreign currency, where the amount represents the value of the foreign-denominated transaction in the user's home country Currency. For example: Airfare from USA to London: $1,000.00 Taxi from airport to hotel: $100.00 (in £) In terms of your database design, I would recommend not storing the data in any one denomination or reference currency. This would require you to do many more conversions between currencies that is likely to be necessary, and will create additional complexity where in some cases, you will need to do multiple conversions per transaction in and out of your reference currency. I think it will be easier for you to store multiple currencies as themselves, and not in a separate reference currency. I would recommend storing several pieces of information separately for each transaction: This way, you can create a calculated Amount for each transaction that is not in the user's \"\"home\"\" currency, whereas you would need to calculate this for all transactions if you used a universal reference currency. You could also get data from an external source if the user has forgotten the conversion rate. Remember that there are always fees and variations in the exchange rate that a user will get for their home country's currency, even if they change money at the same place at two different times on the same day. As a result, I would recommend building in a simple form that allows a user to enter how much they exchanged and how much they got back to calculate the exchange rate. So for example, let's say I have $ 200.00 USD and I exchanged $ 100.00 USD for £ 60.00, and there was a £ 3.00 fee for the exchange. The exchange rate would be 0.6, and when the user enters a currency conversion, your site could create three separate transactions such as: USD Converted to £: $100.00 £ Received from Exchange: £ 60.00 Exchange Fee: £ 3.00 So if the user exchanged currency and then ran a balance report by Currency, you could either show them that they now have $ 100.00 USD and £ 57.00, or you could alternatively choose to show the £ 57.00 that they have as $95.00 USD instead. If you were showing them a transaction report, you could also show the fee denominated in dollars as well. I would recommend storing your balances and transactions in their own currencies, as you will run into some very interesting problems otherwise. For example, let's say you used a reference currency tied to the dollar. So one day I exchange $ 100.00 USD for £ 60.00. In this system I would still have 100 of my reference currency. However, if the next day, the exchange rate falls and $ 1.00 USD is only worth £ 0.55, and I change my £ 60.00 back into USD, I will get approxiamately $ 109.09 USD back for my £ 60.00. If I then go and buy something for $ 100.00 USD, the balance of the reference currency would be at 0, but I will still have $ 9.09 USD in my pocket as a result of the fluctuating currency values! That is why I'd recommend storing currencies as themselves, and only showing them in another currency for convenience using calculations done \"\"on the fly\"\" at report runtime. Best of luck with your site!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7c5e4cc3f975021d306cac2f5730af64", "text": "It's very simple. Use USDSGD. Here's why: Presenting profits/losses in other currencies or denominations can be useful if you want to sketch out the profit/loss you made due to foreign currency exposure but depending on the audience of your app this may sometimes confuse people (like yourself).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "84f9ed475e99f6abf8d39d2368a0b62c", "text": "\"Does some official tell the Foreign Exchange the the new exchange rate for the yuan is 0.98 * the current exchange rate? For China (and other countries with fixed/controlled exchange rates) - that's exactly how it happens. Does it just print more? This is the way to go for fully convertible currencies (like the USD, EUR, GBP, and handful of others, there're about 20 in the world). Flood the market and as with any commodity - flooding the market leads to a price drop. Obviously \"\"just print more\"\" is much harder to do than picking up the phone and saying \"\"Now you're buying/selling dollars at this price and if you don't I'll have you executed\"\".\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bc6e266b59ecc292bde5266b4226db53", "text": "\"The solution I've come up with is to keep income in CAD, and Accounts Receivable in USD. Every time I post an invoice it prompts for the exchange rate. I don't know if this is \"\"correct\"\" but it seems to be preserving all of the information about the transactions and it makes sense to me. I'm a programmer, not an accountant though so I'd still appreciate an answer from someone more familiar with this topic.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "67fe623c1bd326a05f16c1beb2e452db", "text": "In the EU prices on consumer-focussed sites* are quoted inclusive of VAT. In the USA prices are quoted exclusive of sales tax. Consumer pricing is usually driven at least partly by psychological concerns. Some pricepoints are more appealing to certain types of buyers than others. The Euro vs dollar exchange rate has fluctuated a bit over the years but it's generally averaged somewhere around 1.2 dollars per Euro over the last decade. VAT has varied around 15%-20% in most cases. Put these things together and the same headline price points are generally appropriate in both the USA and the Eurozone. OTOH the Brisith pound has been worth substantially more than the dollar or the Euro. So it makes sense to have a lower headline price in the UK. * B2B focussed sites often quote prices exclusive of VAT, you need to be aware of this when comparing prices.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d55d842e506aca1a0bab26aac7e5778a", "text": "Cross-listing shouldn't be an issue, as the sole reason stocks would behave differently on different exchanges would be due to exchange rates (sure, noise and time differences, but weekly data should take care most of that). If you're using MSCI World index figures in USD, you either have to convert stocks denominated in other currencies to USD at their historical fx rates, or just save a lot of time and use data from stocks listed in the US, when available.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ccef86861b5918e8ad02925f6b4ea9c4", "text": "Is there not some central service that tracks current currency rates that banks can use to get currency data? Sure. But this doesn't matter. All the central service can tell you is how much the rate was historically. But the banks/PayPal don't care about the historical value. They want to know the price that they'll pay when they get around to switching, not the last price before the switch. Beyond that, there is a transaction cost to switching. They have to pay the clearinghouse for managing the transaction. The banks can choose to act as a clearinghouse, but that increases their risk. If the bank has a large balance of US dollars but dollars are falling, then they end up eating that cost. They'll only take that risk if they think that they'll make more money that way. And in the end, they may have to go on the currency market anyway. If a European bank runs out of US dollars, they have to buy them on the open market. Or a US bank might run out of Euros. Or Yen. Etc. Another problem is that many of the currency transactions are small, but the overhead is fixed. If the bank has to pay $5 for every currency transaction, they won't even break even charging 3% on a $100 transaction. So they delay the actual transaction so that they can make more than one at a time. But then they have the risk that the currency value might change in the meantime. If they credit you with $97 in your account ($100 minus the 3% fee) but the price actually drops from $100 to $99, they're out the $1. They could do it the other way as well. You ask for a $100 transaction. They perform a $1000 transaction, of which they give you $97. Now they have $898 ($1000 minus the $5 they paid for the transaction plus the $3 they charged you for the transaction). If there's a 1% drop, they're out $10.98 ($8.98 in currency loss plus a net $2 in fees). This is why banks have money market accounts. So they have someone to manage these problems working twenty-four hours a day. But then they have to pay interest on those accounts, further eating into their profits. Along with paying a staff to monitor the currency markets and things that may affect them.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5fce550f56f3a412fa76cafacb45bd6a", "text": "Take a look at Google Checkout but keep in mind that there is a different list of countries that they support as sellers vs. buyers. The buyer list is much more comprehensive, and I believe covers CIS (Russia, Ukraine and Belarus) while the seller list does not (yet) which means that your client will need to create a U.S. or U.K. based entity to accept payments, however they will be able to accept payments from buyers both in CIS and internationally. Удачи.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b0eea496577f21e08aba1c08f0120db3", "text": "\"I've been doing a bunch of Googling and reading since I first posed this question on travel.SE and I've found an article on a site called \"\"thefinancebuff.com\"\" with a very good comparison of costs as of September 2013: Get the Best Exchange Rate: Bank Wire, Xoom, XE Trade, Western Union, USForex, CurrencyFair by Harry Sit It compares the following methods: Their examples are for sending US$10,000 from the US to Canada and converting to Canadian dollars. CurrencyFair worked out the cheapest.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8def29393e303b6be727289894f80600", "text": "\"FYI, just found this (https://www.paypal.com/webapps/mpp/ua/useragreement-full#8) \"\"8.9 Currency Conversion Currency Conversion 2.5% added to the exchange rate The Currency Conversion spread applies whenever a currency conversion is required to complete your transaction. The exchange rate is determined by a financial institution and is adjusted regularly based on market conditions. Adjustments may be applied immediately and without notice to you. When your payment is funded by a debit or credit card and requires a currency conversion, you consent to and authorize PayPal to convert the currency in place of your debit or credit card issuer. You have the right to have your card issuer perform the currency conversion and can choose this option during checkout on your transaction review page before you complete the transaction.\"\" 2.5%!! Can this be true?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9502308b68e5cffb5c3f0fbd260caeb6", "text": "Chinese suppliers can quote their price in CNY rather than USD (as has been typical), and thus avoid the exchange risk from US dollar volatility- the CNY has been generally appreciating so committing to receive payments in US dollars when their costs are in CNY means they are typically on the losing end of the equation and they have to pad their prices a bit. Canadian importers will have to buy RMB (typically with CAD) to pay for their orders and Canadian exporters can take payment in RMB if they wish, or set prices in CAD. By avoiding the US dollar middleman the transactions are made less risky and incur less costs. Japan did this many decades ago (they, too, used to price their products in USD). This is important in transactions of large amounts, not so much for the tiny amounts associated with tourism. Two-way annual trade between China and Canada is in excess of $70bn. Of course Forex trading may greatly exceed the actual amounts required for trade- the world Forex market is at least an order of magnitude greater than size of real international trade. All that trading in currency and financial instruments means more jobs on Bay Street and more money flowing into a very vital part of the Canadian economy. Recent article from the (liberal) Toronto Star here.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3f556ec1a4b3445c80dd443fbfc037af", "text": "I prefer to use a Foreign Exchange transfer service. You will get a good exchange rate (better than from Paypal or from your bank) and it is possible to set it up with no transfer fees on both ends. You can use an ACH transfer from your US bank account to the FX's bank account and then a SEPA transfer in Europe to get the funds into your bank account. Transfers can also go in the opposite direction (Europe to USA). I've used XE's service (www.xe.com) and US Forex's service (www.usforex.com). Transferwise (www.transferwise.com) is another popular service. US Forex's service calls you to confirm each transfer. They also charge a $5 fee on transfers under $1000. XE's service is more convenient: they do not charge fees for small transfers and do not call you to confirm the tramsfer. However, they will not let you set up a free ACH transfer from US bank accounts if you set up your XE account outside the US. In both cases, the transfer takes a few business days to complete. EDIT: In my recent (Summer 2015) experience, US Forex has offered slightly better rates than XE. I've also checked out Transferwise, and for transfers from the US it seems to be a bit of a gimmick with a fee added late in the process. For reference, I just got quotes from the three sites for converting 5000 USD to EUR:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "40853e4dfaf1a2a3ce25732cd544dd0a", "text": "While in the UK and travelling to Europe, I heard of the FairFX euro card from the website Money Supermarket (affiliate link which waives the sign-up fee). The link also includes many other alternative prepaid euro cards which may be better suited for your uses. The FairFX card is available in both GBP and EUR, and both products come with chip and pin. They also charge relatively little as compared to most bank cards (no currency conversion on use, $2~ withdrawal charges from ATM). I generally had a good experience with this card, and was able to purchase items both in person as well as online using it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bf9423b9d4b925b1d38d1d09b0f2d4a8", "text": "\"My solution when I lived in Singapore was to open an account with HSBC, who at the time also had branches in the US. When I was home, I used the same debit card, and the bank only charged a nominal currency exchange fee (since it never had to leave their system, it was lower than had it left their system). Another option, though slightly more costly, is to use Paypal. A third option is to cash-out in CAD and convert to USD at a \"\"large\"\" institution - the larger your deposit/conversion balance, the better the rate you can get. To the best of my knowledge, this shouldn't be taxable - presuming you've paid the taxes on it to start with, and you've been filing your IRS returns every year you've been in Canada.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "af84ae777b49e1156576a487ed32528f", "text": "Taxing citizens on global income caused by tax inversion, not the cause of tax inversion. If yourwebsite.com makes $1mil, and you pay yourwebsite.ca $1m for rights to the name, that's inversion. Your company, and you, as the owner, have $1m income in Canada. All of which came from US revenue. I'm not saying the tax system is great or anything. There just seems to be a miss understanding.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "7a36739f706ca09ab842d04ca1df17c1", "text": "The question isn't sales but profits. Banks traditionally profit by making loans. Just as with a physical product, there are costs involved, income produced, and the difference between the two is gross profit. From there you can get net profit, and from there you can look at efficiency or profit per share or whatever other metric floats your boat. Or you can just buy index funds, get average rates of return, and not have to think about it.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "47d614e8a3ff344a63666b7022297125", "text": "Something to consider is how broad is Yahoo! Finance taking in their data for making some comparisons. For example, did you look at the other companies in the same industry? On the Industry page, the Top Life Insurance Companies by Market Cap are mostly British companies which could make things a bit different than you'd think. Another point is how this is just for one quarter which may be an anomaly as the data could get a bit awkward if some companies are just coming back to being profitable and could have what appears to be great growth but this is because their earnings grow from $.01/share to $1/share which is a growth of $10,000 percent as this is an increase of 100 times but really this may just be from various accounting charges the company had that hit its reserves and caused its earnings to dip temporarily.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "639bc6d80c441eae03aacc9b5ee99b53", "text": "Relative valuation is always my go to. Reason being i can make any company a buy or sell by changing assumptions such as growth rate, discount rate ect with a DCF. Still a great exercise to complete on all investments. Also an RV will help you pick the best out of the group (hopefully) rather than take a stance on whether you can actually predict the future inputs ( no one can)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1c58473b1a447a9dc8b2268ef190b048", "text": "He owns the majoirty of berkshire hathaway which owns a lot of big companies outright as well as fractions of other big public companies. For example, his holding company berkshire hathaway which lets say he owns 50% of, owns 10% of coca cola. This means that every can or bottle of coke sold, berkshire hathaway gets 10% of the profit so say .01 per can. Thats a lot given the millions of cans sold. Since he owns 50% of berkshire hathaway that means he is getting half a penny of every can of coke sold. Do this with all of his companies and investment holdings and you get to billions of dollars.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fa789c2d09c37555757096b57dbc6b56", "text": "\"The answer depends on what is your portfolio's objective. If you are operating a multi-asset class portfolio (i.e. your portfolio has both bonds and stocks) and are targeting absolute returns, then yes, comparing a stock's beta (or correlation) to a bond benchmark makes sense. What you do with this stock's \"\"bond beta\"\" information further depends on what kind of return profile you want your multi-asset class portfolio to have. If you want stocks that appreciate in price when bond prices decline, then of course you want to buy \"\"negative bond beta\"\" stocks. If you are operating a purely relative equity portfolio (i.e. you are benchmarked to the stock market), then comparing the \"\"bond beta\"\" is of little use to you. Hope this helps.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8a6e87ece5bda5dbb3720b8f90837b88", "text": "\"Here is how I would approach that problem: 1) Find the average ratios of the competitors: 2) Find the earnings and book value per share of Hawaiian 3) Multiply the EPB and BVPS by the average ratios. Note that you get two very different numbers. This illustrates why pricing from ratios is inexact. How you use those answers to estimate a \"\"price\"\" is up to you. You can take the higher of the two, the average, the P/E result since you have more data points, or whatever other method you feel you can justify. There is no \"\"right\"\" answer since no one can accurately predict the future price of any stock.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1589a66f5ac4ed2660e146ba82cd8dbc", "text": "\"In theory, say we had two soft drink companies, and no other existed. On Jan 1, they report they each had 50% market share for the past year. Over the next year, one company's gain is the other's loss. But over the year, for whatever reason, the market has grown 10% (all the stories of bad water helped this), and while the market share ends at 49/51, the 49 guy has improved his margins, and that stock rises by more than the other. In general, companies in the same industry will be positively correlated, and strongly so. I offer my \"\"spreadsheets are your friend\"\" advice. I took data over the last 10 years for Coke and Pepsi. Easy to pull from various sites, I tend to use Yahoo. In Excel the function CORREL with let you compare two columns of numbers for correlation. I got a .85 result, pretty high. To show how a different industry would have a lower correlation, I picked Intel. Strangely, enough, Intel and Pepsi had a .94 correlation. A coincidence, I suppose, but my point is that you can easily get data and perform your own analysis to better understand what's going on.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0fabf85cd931ba89b9c27fcb7b04bb9b", "text": "\"To my knowledge, there's no universal equation, so this could vary by individual/company. The equation I use (outside of sentiment measurement) is the below - which carries its own risks: This equations assumes two key points: Anything over 1.2 is considered oversold if those two conditions apply. The reason for the bear market is that that's the time stocks generally go on \"\"sale\"\" and if a company has a solid balance sheet, even in a downturn, while their profit may decrease some, a value over 1.2 could indicate the company is oversold. An example of this is Warren Buffett's investment in Wells Fargo in 2009 (around March) when WFC hit approximately 7-9 a share. Although the banking world was experiencing a crisis, Buffett saw that WFC still had a solid balance sheet, even with a decrease in profit. The missing logic with many investors was a decrease in profits - if you look at the per capita income figures, Americans lost some income, but not near enough to justify the stock falling 50%+ from its high when evaluating its business and balance sheet. The market quickly caught this too - within two months, WFC was almost at $30 a share. As an interesting side note on this, WFC now pays $1.20 dividend a year. A person who bought it at $7 a share is receiving a yield of 17%+ on their $7 a share investment. Still, this equation is not without its risks. A company may have a solid balance sheet, but end up borrowing more money while losing a ton of profit, which the investor finds out about ad-hoc (seen this happen several times). Suddenly, what \"\"appeared\"\" to be a good sale, turns into a person buying a penny with a dollar. This is why, to my knowledge, no universal equation applies, as if one did exist, every hedge fund, mutual fund, etc would be using it. One final note: with robotraders becoming more common, I'm not sure we'll see this type of opportunity again. 2009 offered some great deals, but a robotrader could easily be built with the above equation (or a similar one), meaning that as soon as we had that type of environment, all stocks fitting that scenario would be bought, pushing up their PEs. Some companies might be willing to take an \"\"all risk\"\" if they assess that this equation works for more than n% of companies (especially if that n% returns an m% that outweighs the loss). The only advantage that a small investor might have is that these large companies with robotraders are over-leveraged in bad investments and with a decline, they can't make the good investments until its too late. Remember, the equation ultimately assumes a person/company has free cash to use it (this was also a problem for many large investment firms in 2009 - they were over-leveraged in bad debt).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "217db2ca4993d62044f857c9618dbc9f", "text": "If you are calculating: keep in mind that company A probably also sells washers, dryers, stoves, dish washers.... Each of which has their own market size. Also remember that people pay X times the value of earnings per share, so the value depends not on sales but on earnings, and expected growth.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9ed4fcf38b6b750eddd20aed017cac45", "text": "\"The two are not incompatible. This is particularly true of Glaxo and Pfizer, two drug companies operating in roughly the same markets with similar products. Many \"\"good\"\" companies offer a combination of decent yields and growth. Glaxo and Pfizer are both among them. There is often (not always), a trade-off between high yield and high growth. All other things being equal, a company that pays out a larger percentage of its profits as dividends will exhibit lower growth. But a company may have a high yield because of a depressed price due to short term problems. When those problems are fixed, the company and stock grows again, giving you the best (or at least the better) of both worlds.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2c9f2e17555cddbca29bea86b1a14fa3", "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.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f245448cef4bd0cb4b082095362b7a41", "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.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cfc6a71d87f7cc84ff75401a7965d421", "text": "I look at the following ratios and how these ratios developed over time, for instance how did valuation come down in a recession, what was the trough multiple during the Lehman crisis in 2008, how did a recession or good economy affect profitability of the company. Valuation metrics: Enterprise value / EBIT (EBIT = operating income) Enterprise value / sales (for fast growing companies as their operating profit is expected to be realized later in time) and P/E Profitability: Operating margin, which is EBIT / sales Cashflow / sales Business model stability and news flow", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5db2500544c713428b4b849702c8e351", "text": "In order to see whether you can buy or sell some given quantity of a stock at the current bid price, you need a counterparty (a buyer) who is willing to buy the number of stocks you are wishing to offload. To see whether such a counterparty exists, you can look at the stock's order book, or level two feed. The order book shows all the people who have placed buy or sell orders, the price they are willing to pay, and the quantity they demand at that price. Here is the order book from earlier this morning for the British pharmaceutical company, GlaxoSmithKline PLC. Let's start by looking at the left-hand blue part of the book, beneath the yellow strip. This is called the Buy side. The book is sorted with the highest price at the top, because this is the best price that a seller can presently obtain. If several buyers bid at the same price, then the oldest entry on the book takes precedence. You can see we have five buyers each willing to pay 1543.0 p (that's 1543 British pence, or £15.43) per share. Therefore the current bid price for this instrument is 1543.0. The first buyer wants 175 shares, the next, 300, and so on. The total volume that is demanded at 1543.0p is 2435 shares. This information is summarized on the yellow strip: 5 buyers, total volume of 2435, at 1543.0. These are all buyers who want to buy right now and the exchange will make the trade happen immediately if you put in a sell order for 1543.0 p or less. If you want to sell 2435 shares or fewer, you are good to go. The important thing to note is that once you sell these bidders a total of 2435 shares, then their orders are fulfilled and they will be removed from the order book. At this point, the next bidder is promoted up the book; but his price is 1542.5, 0.5 p lower than before. Absent any further changes to the order book, the bid price will decrease to 1542.5 p. This makes sense because you are selling a lot of shares so you'd expect the market price to be depressed. This information will be disseminated to the level one feed and the level one graph of the stock price will be updated. Thus if you have more than 2435 shares to sell, you cannot expect to execute your order at the bid price in one go. Of course, the more shares you are trying to get rid of, the further down the buy side you will have to go. In reality for a highly liquid stock as this, the order book receives many amendments per second and it is unlikely that your trade would make much difference. On the right hand side of the display you can see the recent trades: these are the times the trades were done (or notified to the exchange), the price of the trade, the volume and the trade type (AT means automatic trade). GlaxoSmithKline is a highly liquid stock with many willing buyers and sellers. But some stocks are less liquid. In order to enable traders to find a counterparty at short notice, exchanges often require less liquid stocks to have market makers. A market maker places buy and sell orders simultaneously, with a spread between the two prices so that they can profit from each transaction. For instance Diurnal Group PLC has had no trades today and no quotes. It has a more complicated order book, enabling both ordinary buyers and sellers to list if they wish, but market makers are separated out at the top. Here you can see that three market makers are providing liquidity on this stock, Peel Hunt (PEEL), Numis (NUMS) and Winterflood (WINS). They have a very unpalatable spread of over 5% between their bid and offer prices. Further in each case the sum total that they are willing to trade is 3000 shares. If you have more than three thousand Dirunal Group shares to sell, you would have to wait for the market makers to come back with a new quote after you'd sold the first 3000.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4115921a34c86a9a9945c443a5139fa6", "text": "This company is doesn't actually sell tangible goods. Just a process. And apparently fails at succeeding? Sheesh. I bet the owner dropped out of college, is constantly seeking initial investors for random ideas to come to life, gets money, buys more coke.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "22ea84df5765d24026478526849a4fb6", "text": "Don't ever quantify a stock's preference/performance just based on the dividend it is paying out Volatility defined by movements in the the stock's price, affected by factors embedded in the stock e.g. the corporation, the business it is in, the economy, the management etc etc. Apple wasn't paying dividends but people were still buying into it. Same with Amazon, Berkshire, Google. These companies create value by investing their earnings back into their company and this is reflected in their share prices. Their earnings create more value in this way for the stockholders. The holding structures of these companies also help them in their motives. Supposedly $100 invested in either stocks. For keeping things easy, you invested at the same time in both, single annual dividend and prices more or less remain constant. Company A: $5/share at 20% annual dividend yield. Dividend = $20 Company B: $10/share at 20% annual dividend yield Dividend = $20 You receive the same dividend in both cases. Volatility willn't affect you unless you are trading, or the stock market tanks, or some very bad news comes out of either company or on the economy. Volatility in the long term averages out, except in specific outlier cases e.g. Lehman bankruptcy and the financial crash which are rare but do happen. In general case the %price movements in both stocks would more or less follow the markets (not exactly though) except when relevant news for either corporations come out.", "title": "" } ]